Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. As we continue to take some precautions to manage ongoing Covid-19 risks, the Senate continues to welcome the public and has provided access to both in person and teleconference participation for public comment.

For individuals wishing to provide public comment via the teleconference service, the participant toll free number and access code is posted on our committee website, and I will announce it now.

The participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621-7161. I will maintain decorum during the hearing as is customary. Any individual who is disruptive may be removed from the remote meeting service or have their connection muted.

We also have representatives from the administration and various stakeholder groups for participating remotely today. For our remote participants, please mute your phones or computers. This will greatly aid in eliminating any acoustic feedback.

Anytime you wish to be recognized, use the raise your hand feature in the program and each time you are recognized to speak, a pop-up window will appear asking if you would like to unmute. Please select unmute before you begin speaking. Once recognized to speak, please make sure you can be seen on the screen, state your name and that you are ready to address the committee.

Our IT personnel will put you back on mute when you are done. For today's hearing, we will be hearing all of the panels on the agenda prior to taking any public comment. Public comment will only be permissible on the topic of today's agenda. So, there is broad scientific consensus that we are in a 6th mass extinction, with extinction rates hundreds or thousands of times faster than what would naturally occur.

There is also broad consensus that, similar to climate change, this is human caused and represents an existential threat to humanity. California is not immune from this threat. Our state is a global biodiversity hotspot, but this biodiversity is under threat from climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive species, disease, pests, and pollution.

30 by 30 the topic of today's hearing is an international movement to protect 30% of the world's land and water as intact natural ecosystems by 2030.

It's a milestone to a larger goal to protect 50% of these areas by 2050 in order to halt and reverse the world's extinction crisis. To combat this crisis in California, Governor Newsom issued an executive order in 2020, adopting a goal to conserve at least 30% of California's land and coastal water by the year 2030.

The California Natural Resources Agency later released official strategies to guide implementation of this goal in 2022.

Further, in the last two years, the legislature and Governor have partnered to allocate $2.9 billion over multiple years for nature-based solutions, including 30 by 30 and Coastal Resilience. Today, the Newsom Administration is beginning to implement policies, programs and actions to achieve these goals.

While I want to applaud the Newsom Administration for its leadership, its great leadership at home and globally, in adopting an ambitious goal in line with recommendations from the scientific community, it remains unclear how the state will achieve this goal.

The Administration has identified important strategies that represent a step in the right direction. However, to date, the state lacks a detailed plan for how it will get to this goal, including actionable acquisition priorities, interim milestone targets and targets for biodiversity access and climate resilience.

Further questions remain on whether and how various state agencies will revise their policies and programs to align with the initiative and how they will coordinate across programs.

Additionally, the Newsom Administration recently proposed rolling back significant funding for this initiative, raising concerns of whether the state will have sufficient resources to ramp up conservation across the state. While still early in the implementation of this ambitious initiative, the fact remains that we're just a few years away to the year 2030, seven years away, so we're running out of time.

This committee is convening the hearing today to evaluate the state's approach to California's 30 by 30 initiative and to hear perspectives from various stakeholders and the public.

Through this hearing, this committee hopes to better understand the Newsom Administration's 30 by 30 strategies, policies and activities, including the role of the California Natural Resources Agency and key departments helping to implement this initiative, progress toward the 30 by 30 goal and opportunities and challenges encountered under this initiative, how the Administration is balancing the initiative's biodiversity and public access objectives, how the Administration is partnering with local governments, the Federal Government, Native American tribes, and our nongovernmental partners, and what additional action is needed to help us meet this goal.

I'd like to thank our panelists in advance for showing up this morning to share your insights and perspectives. I know you are all very busy and your time here is appreciated. The Senate looks forward to partnering with the Administration and stakeholders to making this goal a reality.

Please note that while this hearing will focus primarily on the land goal of the 30 x 30 initiative, short comments on the coastal waters goal are also welcome. With that, I'd like to take a few moments to allow my Senate colleagues the opportunity to make their own opening remarks. Do any of our members have opening remarks? Vice Chair Seyarto

Thank you very much. And I have two hearings I'm juggling this morning, so I wanted to get some of these out early. And hopefully the panelists will be able to answer some of these questions or address some of these issues while they're going.

It is important to conserve land, not only in California, but everywhere in the world. But it seems in California we have a lot of clashing policies that wind up working against themselves in our efforts.

When you start to conserve land, you start to encroach on people's private property rights. And that's one of the issues that we've seen with conservation, land acquisition, just in some of the regional efforts to do conservation. But if we're conserving more public lands, that means we're reducing the opportunities to generate more of our renewable energy via solar panels, via windmills and things like that.

We also have housing goals that require land to be able to build more housing and accommodate growth that's coming in the coming years. So that in itself is kind of an issue. We have to be cognizant of that.

Another issue that has cropped up ever since conservation of lands has been instilled in the communities through some of their housing elements and land use elements, is cities were forced to build in conservation area lands and were told to keep their hands off of it.

And now the problem is that those have been overgrown. Nobody is responsible for cleaning them and nobody is supposed to be able to go into them. And then we have these fires that come in and threaten neighborhoods because they're intertwined with the conservation areas.

So that's a question that's going to have to be answered, is not only the question how much does it cost to get through and conserve the lands, but also how are we going to maintain those lands in perpetuity?

Conservation groups are good at lobbying to conserve areas, but they're not necessarily good at making sure that those conserved areas, that the dead brush or we have a 50% reduction in dead fuels so that we don't have massive wildfires.

On the other front, it seems to contradict our efforts when we talk about reducing our energy policy in regards to gas and gasoline and petroleum products, when we're supporting the destruction of our Amazon rainforests, the biggest natural air cleaner in the world.

And we're supporting that, and yet we're trying to do more lands here when that is actually a better cleanser of the air, I guess you could call it, than anything we have here.

So we need to come to grips with all of these different impacts that are fighting against each other. We have all these goals, but it seems they're fighting against the other goals. And somehow we have to cobble something together that makes sense.

And so that's my concern with these efforts, is they're great efforts, but we need to ensure that we take into consideration all of the different efforts that we're doing and whether they are attainable, given the impacts that something like this might have on those other efforts, like housing and clean air and conserving the preservation of the world, I guess when we're actually doing things to destroy it at the same time. So those are my comments. Look forward to hearing some of these.

I will try to listen via monitor when I'm not here, but at the same time I'll be in other hearings. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Seyarto, Senator Larid

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for scheduling this hearing. One of the hardest things in the state's climate program has been quantifying and dealing with natural lands as a piece of our goals and what we do. And in the past scoping plans, the quantification of that has been baffling to some people.

And I think the issue here is, in the face of a crashing climate, we're trying to figure out how to deal with the 30 x 30 in a way that then it is quantified and demonstrably meets the goals. And that's what's important in this hearing.

And given some of the previous comments, there is work to resolve those issues. So, if you look at one of the two calls for Offshore Wind, it has been aligned with a potential National Marine Sanctuary.

So both move ahead and both move ahead in a way that they don't get in the way of each other. In Coastal Resilience, the Administration, and I know this is not a budget hearing, but the Administration reduced by 43% the amount that was there for Coastal Resilience planning in the proposed budget.

And in their defense, that was done before the first of nine atmospheric rivers hit California, but representing the district that was ground zero in those storms.

Now there are really difficult decisions to be made about whether to accept what's happening, whether to rebuild. State parks had a sea wall at Seacliff Beach wiped out for the 6th time over the last 60 years. It might be time to have a discussion about whether or not you rebuild that sea wall.

And that's what's important about the budget. That's what's important about this hearing, is having those discussions altogether. And I want to echo the chair in one way. This Executive order was done in 2020.

We are in 2023. And admittedly there was a pandemic in between. But process is not an outcome. An outcome is an outcome. And I think one of the major questions in front of us today at the hearing is, how do we get to the end? How do we get to a point that there's actionable items and what is in the budget has a program to actually be invested.

And I think that for me, will be the heart of today's hearing is trying to understand how and when we are going to get to that point, because the clock is ticking in any of a number of ways, and we have to make sure that this is actionable and we get to the end. So thank you for the opportunity to make opening comments, and I really look forward to listening to our panelists and the discussion.

Thank you, Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, first, gratitude to you and your leadership for convening the oversight hearing on this matter. Obviously, in my previous service in government, I've been exposed to a number of these issues that remain close to my heart.

To echo our former secretary and colleagues comments, the clock is ticking. This is existential in nature. I view it as something that should be much more of a priority for the state government.

I appreciate the work that the agency has been doing. And just to put it out there, because I, too, may be running in and out, I'm going to be particularly interested in thoughts on what the specific timeline is for integrated strategies around prioritization targets, particularly around acquisition.

What those protocols look like and what the timeline for those look like. What the thoughts are about internal administrative coordination among agencies so that we're not duplicating policies or we're not creating an extended timeline.

Certainly the question of ongoing protection and maintenance once there are designated protection policies and administrative regulations in place. And certainly last but not least, resource planning, as it was acknowledged, not a budget hearing.

But it's very relevant to understand the thinking about if we haven't been able to identify resourcing, if we don't have specific timelines and steps around that, it's sort of difficult to imagine that we're going to make significant progress when the clock is ticking.

So with that said, I'm looking forward to hearing from our very distinguished panelists. And again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senators, for your comments. This is my first hearing as Chair, so I have the privilege of introducing the first witness of my first hearing ever as Chair, Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, Wade Crowfoot. Welcome, Mr. Crowfoot.

Thanks so much, Chairman and Senators. It's a pleasure and an honor to be with you. We're really excited to share with you our progress on 30 x 30 and to unpack the very good questions that you are asking.

We welcome the conversation about how to achieve this ambitious goal and how to do so in coordination with other state priorities, including energy development and housing. And I would say also we welcome your accountability to ensure that we are on track actually meeting these goals.

So today we have a presentation from our state team, which I hope sets the framework for this discussion. I'll share a big broad overview of the sort of why and what and a little bit of the how. And then I'll turn it to my colleague, Dr. Jennifer Norris, who was recruited into the first ever position as a deputy secretary for Biodiversity and Habitat at our agency and is spearheading 30 x 30.

And then we'll turn it over to some valued leaders on 30 x 30 within state government. Chuck Bonham, who leads our Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Armando Quintero, who leads our remarkable state park system. And then, of course, you all have organized a great panel of partners that are not from state government, but that are every bit as important as driving 30 x 30 forward.

So again, let me, as we start this discussion, share with you what our vision is and the progress we've made towards 30 x 30, which of course is this commitment we share to conserve 30% of our over 100 million acres in California's lands and 30% of our coastal waters, which of course go from the beach out 3 miles along an 1100 miles coastline.

So why 30 by 30? We know California is leading the world combating climate change, and for good reason.

We're also on the front lines. A lot of us are spending a lot of our time addressing the emergencies that climate change is driving, whether that's drought, recently, flooding, wildfires, extreme heat. So, California is truly leading the world.

And we know that actually nature lands play a role in this effort. And historically, we haven't focused as much about the role of nature and lands, both combating climate change by sequestering carbon in our lands and our plants, but also creating buffers for these impacts that we're feeling.

Less known crisis that Senator Min referenced is the extinction crisis across our world. We are losing plants and animal across our world forever. California is one of our global biodiversity hotspots that Chuck may talk about a little later.

And we know we need to protect this incredible biological diversity, not only for its intrinsic value, but this biodiversity is almost a canary in the coal mine. And as we lose our biodiversity, we know we're losing and degrading the natural systems that are sustaining our lives.

And of course, on the topic of inequity, California is leading the world around how to redress inequity. We talk about a California for all and in our agency, an outdoors for all. How do we reconnect people with the land? And how do we redress some historic wrongs, first and foremost to indigenous communities across the world?

Believe it. It's remarkable that over half of our biodiversity across the world is managed by indigenous communities.

But these indigenous communities have been separated from stewardship. No more than in the United States and in California, where the government we represent has disconnected the original stewards from the lands that we're now working to conserve.

So, climate change, biodiversity, equitable access, tribal leadership, these are all challenges and opportunities that 30 x 30 is uniquely positioned to address. So I want to share a little bit about how it came about.

And Senator Min pointed out that Governor Newsom in 2020 made history when he established an official policy of 30 by 30 in California, first state in the nation to do this. Importantly, seeds were planted by nongovernmental groups in California and throughout the world that were driving an effort to conserve or protect about a third of our planet in this decade.

Further, our Legislature advanced this effort, and there was a legislative proposal, AB 3030 by Ash Kalra to establish 30 x 30. So, a number of, sort of concurrent streams led to this executive order.

I'll also mention a fishing trip that Chuck and I were on with the Governor when we were talking with him about, what role can nature play more visibly and centrally in all the work we're doing on climate change, which also drove, just a few months later, the executive order.

We were gratified that after Governor Newsom established that executive order, it was three or four months later that the newly elected Biden Harris administration adopted 30 x 30 for the United States, the Federal Government.

And then we were really gratified to be part of a delegation led by seven state legislators, including four state senators, to Montreal this past December, just a couple of months ago, when virtually almost every country of the world agreed to a treaty establishing 30 x 30 in their own countries.

So once again, California leads and the world comes along. We now have a 30 x 30 framework across the world with the recognition that nature plays a role in all the challenges that we face. And California has a unique opportunity to lead the world, showing how 30 x 30 gets done in an effective, balanced way.

So that's what we're talking about today, which is, how do we do this? So I'll repeat and you'll hear that a lot of our team talk about this.

But 30 x 30 is a voluntary, locally led effort, I call it a movement, to protect lands and coastal waters in their natural state. Voluntary because we're not talking about a regulatory program.

We're talking about actions taken sometimes by willing sellers of land and willing buyers of land or owners of land that want to put conservation easements on their land, or public policy changes for public lands, all focused on how can we improve conservation across our state.

We know that this is only one of several priorities and referenced in the Senator's opening remarks were energy development and housing as two key priorities.

We know that effectively planned conservation not only doesn't conflict with those other priorities but can help facilitate them because we know the most effective lands to conserve and then we know the lands to concentrate that development in. 30 x 30 if it's going to succeed, is not a government program. It's not a state initiative with respect to elected officials.

It's not even an elected official promise. It's a movement. It's thousands of groups and leaders from across California coming together to achieve this goal. Dr. Norris will talk about the millions of acres of land that we need to conserve in the next seven years to be able to do this. This is going to be an all hands on deck effort.

We see success as more public open spaces for the enjoyment of all of our state's residents, particularly in areas that don't have a lot of open space to enjoy. Success is sensitive ecological areas protected, more wildlife crossings and wildlife connectivity, areas of refuge as our climate changes conditions and needed habitat?

If we're successful in state government, we're putting the wins in the sales of community groups, land trusts, nongovernmental organizations in your districts, really helping them achieve their priority conservation efforts. And some of you have already articulated in a very detailed way, what are the priorities in your own districts to achieve.

So, the way I see it, 30 x 30 is a vehicle to achieve community driven conservation across the state and across its legislative districts. What does success look like?

Success looks like in seven years from now. But in coming decades, ancestral land return, where we find opportunities to work with tribal governments and communities to get land back under ownership and stewardship of our tribes.

If we're successful in these areas on conservation in these ecologically sensitive areas, we'll provide more holistic health to our environment. We have a remarkable set of protections for endangered species, both in California as a result of our state's Endangered Species Act, and federally or nationally based on the federal Endangered Species Act.

But I talk about this a lot as emergency room medicine, that if the only health care policy we have to keep nature healthy is that emergency room approach when the patient is on their deathbed, we're in trouble.

So if we can actually utilize 30 x 30 to protect upstream the health of our ecosystems, not only will it be better for our environment, but it will avoid the sometimes unintended consequences that Endangered Species Act protections have.

Success also looks like improved conservation on over 50% of our land mass in California that is under ownership and management by the Federal Government. How can we improve land conservation and protection in those already federal public areas?

Ultimately, it means healthy, stabilized places, both for nature and people to be. It means increased outdoor recreation opportunities, including better fishing and hunting opportunities, because more abundant ecosystems mean more abundant fish and wildlife. So, it's an ambitious set of vision, it's an ambitious goal.

But I am glad that thanks to you all in the legislature driving on this so hard. Thanks to Governor Newsom, California has the opportunity to lead the world on what is now a global commitment, demonstrating over the next seven years how we will get this done in California and provide a model to the rest of the world.

So with that said, I'll introduce my colleague, Dr. Norris, Jennifer, to walk us through a little bit more of the nuts and bolts. You've heard the why and the what and a little bit about what the vision is. And now, Jennifer, Dr. Norris is going to help us understand how we plan to get there.

And thank you. Dr. Norris, I just want to say that for purposes of time, we have to be out of here by noon. I think you have 10 minutes to speak. Thanks.

Okay, I will try to zoom through my PowerPoint. I did prepare a little bit of 30 x 30 101, but the secretary covered a lot of it, so I will go quickly. I do have a PowerPoint to share. Let me just do that.

You got that in the room?

Yes, we do.

Great. It should be going. There we go. Okay, great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity. Again, my name is Jennifer Norris, Deputy Secretary for Biodiversity and Habitat at the Resources Agency. I won't cover the Executive order. We already all talked about that. Put it in place in 2020. A key part of that, though, was the Governor did ask us to develop a strategy for how to achieve 30 x 30. And that's what I want to walk you through today.

But before I do, I want to share that. We spent over a year in really aggressive public engagement to develop this strategy. We had 17 workshops in a little over a year. We had an online questionnaire. We met with over 70 California Native American tribes. We received over 1000 letters and interacted with over 4000 individuals over the course of this time. So the input we received is really reflected in this document that I'll walk you through today.

I call it a crowdsourced strategy, and we really appreciate our partners across the state who helped us bring this to light. So this document was released last April. It's called our pathways to 30 x 30. And the subtitle accelerating conservation of California's nature is purposeful. It's really about, as the secretary said, putting the wind in the sails of local conservation across the state. So our document starts with sort of, what are we trying to accomplish? Right, 30% conservation.

It doesn't just mean any acres anywhere, it really matters which ones we choose. So when we do conservation across the state, we want to make sure we're identifying places that protect and restore our state's biodiversity, expand access to nature for all, and that we protect lands that both sequester carbon and provide resilience to the effects of climate change. Our framework also doesn't talk about just what we want to do, but also how we want to do it.

And these core commitments really permeate all of our work, and they represent throughout the document. And that's that we want to always, as we're doing our work, think about advancing justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, strengthening our tribal partnerships and to the point of the Vice Chair, protecting our economic prosperity, clean energy resources and our food supply. And we believe that California really is on the cutting edge of this work. We've demonstrated that this is possible.

We've more to do in this space, but we think 30 x 30 is a great vehicle for getting that done. So conservation is a big word in this context, to be a 30 x 30 conservation area. I will tell you that to land on the definition of conservation we convened two expert panels. We took over 6 hours of public comment, and we received, as I mentioned, over 1000 letters giving input. And many of them were on this one sentence, which we rewrote about three times.

But our conservation definition is land and coastal water areas that are durably protected and managed to sustain functional ecosystems, both intact and restored, and the diversity of life that they support. And it's key here that the lands are durably protected. It can't be easily undone, and that biodiversity conservation is at the core. And this shows up, really on a broad range of landscapes across the state.

Those areas in green on the right are all the places in California that already meet this definition, which for our land area is 24%. And this includes many of the dedicated conservation areas that you can envision, like wilderness areas and Yosemite National Park, but also many of our recreation lands and open spaces. This can include regional open spaces, like maybe East Bay regional parks, but also duck clubs in the Central Valley, as well as working lands. We have a lot of conservation lands under permanent easement.

I think a lot about the Central Valley Vernal Pool Conservation that is really effective in protecting a lot of our rare plants, and those meet our definition as well. But we make the point that conservation that occurs in the areas that don't meet this definition is equally as important. And there's lots of great work happening across the state to protect those rare and endangered species and to be more sustainable statewide.

In our coastal areas, 16% of our coastal waters meet our definition, and currently that is represented by our marine protected area network. I'd like to point out that decadal management review is in process for that network, and we will be using that to determine what additional areas we might need to consider in the future. Our other key strategies include working with federal partners to strengthen protections at national marine sanctuaries.

We're also working to create indigenous marine stewardship areas, and we're evaluating other special management measures across our coastal waters to determine whether they meet the definition of conserve. So at the moment, our take and no take areas in marine protected areas meet our definition. But we're evaluating all of these other possibilities. Our document outlines 10 pathways to achieve 30 x 30. Many of these are state funded, but not all are, as the secretary mentioned.

Number four, for example, requires working with our federal partners on enhancing conservation on existing public lands. But much of our work relies on acquisitions and easements, but also being more strategic about how we deploy mitigation and then working together more effectively across the state. In the interest of time. I won't go through all these, but I'm happy to answer any questions about them. A really important thing I want to point out is that we did develop this California nature geographic information system.

This is one of the keys to advancing California's 30 x 30 initiative. This is a suite of visualization and decision support tools. It shows you in the state, where in the state our existing protected areas are located. It's going to help us track our progress toward 30%, and it helps us prioritize the most important places to protect in any given region.

So that previous map was the protected areas map across the state, and this is a slide showing you the other kinds of layers that you can then bring in. You can overlay the protected areas with biodiversity shown in the upper right, access shown in the bottom right, and climate change conditions like the panel on the left showing projected temperature conditions. So then you can look at these different pieces of information together and identify important areas to protect that overlay with existing protected areas.

And you can also run statistics on what's been protected and how well that's getting us to achieve our goals. So looking at the bottom right, this is a snapshot of LA County, where only 3% of the population is within a half a mile of a protected area. So a system like this is really valuable for helping us track our progress and identifying opportunities to do more.

As the secretary said, our implementation vision is voluntary, regionally led conservation, with the state supporting and accelerating the efforts of regional coalitions, tribal partners, federal, state and local governments, academics and more. And it really is a movement. We have thousands and thousands of people who are engaged with this work.

In the summer of 2022, we held a day long, in person gathering to share information about the funding that has been provided by the Legislature, the different programs that we have that are going to help us implement this work, and our opportunities to partner with each other. We also launched our 30 x 30 Partnership Coordinating Committee.

These are leaders across our state who are helping us get the word out, figure out where more information is needed, and ensure that all communities across the state have the opportunity to plug in to this important work. We followed our September gathering with a virtual expo where we shared information again about funding and programs. This really represents our commitment to equity because not everybody was able to participate in person, and it was a truly standing room only event. So those videos are available on our website.

You can also find FAQs, links to past webinars and that CA nature that I mentioned. And I'm pleased to say that we are already investing in these programs. They're already taking off. We've spent $95 million already on 55 projects that are conserving lands, increasing access, and building the resilience of natural systems. And there are scores of projects in review. We are really excited for the work ahead, and Director Bonham and Director Quintero have some great examples to share.

I just want to share my favorite, which is the purchase and return of 46 acres of ancestral Wiyot lands accomplished through a tribally led partnership with academic and community organizations. This was funded by a $1.2 million Prop 1 coastal environmental justice grant from the Ocean Protection Council. These lands have been returned to the Wiyot tribe stewardship and will be restored and conserved to protect the important cultural, ceremonial, and environmental resources on the property.

Now, 46 acres isn't a lot of acres, but this is really big on what we most want to do. And this land return is an early example of partnering with California Native American tribes to help us achieve our 30 x 30 goals. And we're really proud of that. So in closing, I just want to thank you for the opportunity to share our vision and our progress. I look forward to your questions and I'll pass the mic to Director Chuck Bonham of the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Thank you, Dr. Norris. We'll hear next from Director Bonham.

Thank you, chair and Committee Members. Dr. Norris, Secretary Crowfoot, my name is Chuck Bonham and I'm the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. And let me pause, Chair, and just make sure you can hear me and see me clearly in the Committee room.

We can. Thank you.

Perfect. What I'd like to do in my 10 minutes or less is give you concrete examples that have occurred in the last several years, which are illustrations of how we implement this vision. Along the way, I'd like to address the comments of the Vice Chair. I don't think we need end up fighting against each other to achieve this vision because these interests are complementary and synergistic. I'd like to address some of the questions about strategic timelines and how we set priorities for implementations.

But let me step back and just say, in my view, the Department of Fish and Wildlife's mission is biodiversity. So what is biodiversity? Frankly, it's a fancy word created by scientists, but when you distill it down, it means save nature. Biodiversity is that metric our scientists use to judge the wealth, the richness of the natural world. And you've heard it referred to. But turns out California has as much biodiversity as most other places on the entire planet. Our natural wealth is immense.

It's a reason why we have economic wealth. Those dynamics of our natural world and our economic world fit hand in glove when you steward them together. And the department's mission is really to manage all of the animals and plants in this state and the habitats they depend upon for their ecological value as well as their use and enjoyment. So in some ways, the Department was 30 x 30 before 30 x 30 was a thing. This is who we are and what we've been doing since our creation.

And we have examples of implementing this vision just in recent days and the last couple of years. If one goes to the marine landscape, and I know there's more conversation to be had in subsequent hearings about the marine world. We manage all the swimming fish from our shoreline to 3 miles out into the ocean. And we are, as Dr. Norris mentioned, right on the cusp of a conversation about a 10 year review of our marine protected area network off the shores of California.

And bottom line, up front, the science indicates it's working. When you have a conservation landscape, a conservation network that's durable, with protections, what the science is showing, you have bigger fish, you have healthier ecosystems. And in some places in our marine network, what we think we're seeing is this conserved marine landscape is actually a buffer to climate change. Some places in the network appear to have survived the marine heat wave more successfully than other places. So it's working.

This is true on the land front and it's also true on the species front. If you think about just plants in California, we have more types of plants found nowhere else in the world than all the other 47 continental US states combined. And this diversity of natural wealth tracks the diversity of our demographics and the diversity of our economy. This celebration of diversity, I think, is the underpinning for 30 x 30.

So when we look at the 10 pathways for implementation, whether it's protection and restoration, expanding access to nature, sustaining our economic prosperity, clean energy resources, food supply, all those things we believe run through our Department. One of the questions asked in opening remarks was how we integrate with other entities.

As an example, our Department co-leads the California Biodiversity Network, which purposefully brings together experts, community leaders, levels of government, state and federal, to talk about what it means to be partners together to implement 30 x 30. We engage these stewards, these tribal representatives, these scientists and educators from all walks of life, to design where we're going with our prioritization in protection, our prioritization in stewardship, our prioritization in education and scientific inquiry.

So as but one example, there's an existing network, the California Biodiversity Network, purposefully created and being used as an implementation tool for 30 x 30. There are other institutions that exist who've embraced where we're heading with this vision. Most of you know, since 1947, there's something called the Wildlife Conservation Board in California. It's housed within our department, and arguably it's the state's primary or prime real estate conservation agent for protection of lands and animals.

Right now, that wildlife Conservation Board is in the middle of updating its strategic plan in 2023 to amplify and identify its prioritizations for acquisition with willing communities and landowners to implement and achieve the 30 x 30 pathways. So work happening right now about setting priorities and establishing timelines for implementation. But I think in a moment, the Director of State Parks will mimic, in part, my next example. We can also think about implementing 30 x 30 with our own assets.

So, for example, our department currently owns and manages over 1 million acres of wildlife areas, which allow consumptive uses and recreational access like hunting and fishing. So this idea of conservation and consumptive use are not at odds. They need not fight with each other. You can conserve lands and still increase recreational opportunity like we do on our wildlife areas. We also own and manage ecological reserves.

Often those reserves are purchased for the intent of establishing a refugia for natural diversity, where recreational opportunities may be less than they are on wildlife areas. We also manage conservation easements and mitigation lands. All of this is across over 740 properties that comprise the habitats that conserve every major ecosystem in the State of California. How do we know that? We also have an underlying document called the State Wildlife Action Plan.

It's a requirement on the federal front for each state wildlife agency to do such a plan to be eligible for federal funding for ecosystem investment. Our original plan won a national award of all the states for the best plan as to detailing the metrics to conserve biodiversity, the types of lands to acquire, the ratios of lands to acquire within which watersheds. And we're now in the process of updating that plan, respectful of 30 x 30 and the federal commitment for America the beautiful.

So another example of implementation happening right now across the landscape, and those examples continued through funding. Our Wildlife Conservation Board and the department are poised to soon release guidelines on how our communities can avail themselves of $30 million to design more and implement more natural community conservation plans. We're in the middle of exercising our tools to accelerate restoration through cutting the green tape and the first ever state authorized use of CEQA exemptions for restoration projects.

Since April of 2022, our Wildlife Conservation Board has approved over 18 projects that themselves will conserve more than 13,000 acres as conservation easements or fee title transactions that factor into the metrics Dr. Norris presented a moment ago and as an example of how things need not be in conflict, there was mention in the opening comments about the synergy between conserved lands and renewable energy. Well, much can be done in this space that shows how we can achieve a win win.

Just last year, our department, working with a federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management, and a solar development, Eight Minute Energy, which is now called Avantus, reached an agreement on the Onyx Ranch Conservation Project, which will take 215,000 acres of formerly federally glazed land and now create a reserve for those acres.

That allows the energy company to use it as mitigation for the development of their solar project and sets aside an area that is seven times larger than San Francisco, in the middle of the Mojave Desert, for the conservation of western Joshua Tree and other important ecosystems. Everywhere you look right now are activities that show the power of implementation of this vision. It's super exciting for me.

It's the arc of a journey I've been engaged on in my entire career to elevate this dynamic around saving nature to the forefront. I'm thankful for you all's leadership at the Committee level. I set my timer. I realize I'm at 10 minutes, I have so much more. I'd love to say, but let me pass it on to Director Quintero at State Parks.

Thank you, Director Bonham, and you'll have a chance, I think, in Q&A, hopefully, to express some more. Welcome Armando Quintero, Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, and I'm pleased to follow Secretary Crowfoot, Dr. Norris, and Director Chuck Bonham in talking about state parks, of which I am the Director. California State Park's mission statement is closely aligned with the 30 x 30 goals.

It really is our job to provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity as we protect its most valued natural and cultural resources, and we work to create opportunities for high quality outdoor recreation at state parks, we coordinate with partners on the 30 x 30 goals through the Natural Resources Agency led events like the 30 x 30 partnership kickoff last September and the 30 x 30 expo series.

State parks also coordinates with neighboring entities on day to day management decisions, which include project planning and project execution, all of which support 30 x 30 at state parks. We're working with tribal entities statewide to meet the 30 x 30 goals, and this coordination builds on the years of collaborative work with tribes on the stewardship of the state's irreplaceable natural and cultural resources, as well as efforts to broaden access to parks.

Results of our tribal collaborations include the development of signed memorandum of understanding with federally recognized tribes like the Koi Nation, the Kashaya Pomo, the Yurok, the Washoe, and the non federally recognized tribes like the Amah Mutsun. These collaborations have reintroduced species, expanded habitat, and put traditional ecological knowledge about prescribed burns into practice at our parks.

Additionally, we continue making progress on the development of the California Indian Heritage center in West Sacramento, which honors the diversity, the history, as well as the history of the California Indian people by preserving cultural and tribal traditions, and we work to nurture the contemporary expressions and facilitate both research and education in these efforts, which drive us jointly toward the 30 x 30 goals.

State Parks manages over 1.6 million acres across 280 state park units in California, and more than 70% of that land, or about 89 of those units, are classified as state parks whose purpose is to preserve outstanding natural, scenic, and cultural values along with indigenous aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna. Lands classified as state parks protect an array of ecosystems, including wetlands, coastal dunes, grasslands, and forest lands in every region of the state.

These lands also include exceptional or rare ecosystems and habitats where rare, threatened, or endangered species are found. State parkland is classified using the USGS's gap analysis, which Dr. Norris spoke about, which aims to answer the question of how well we're protecting common plants and animals. The gap analysis classifies lands into the four categories, which Dr. Norris spoke about, and the 30 by 30 definition of conserve land includes lands classified as both gap one and gap two.

Following this definition, over 80% of land in the state park system, including 1.375 million acres, is classified as conserved. However, after seeing how similar landowning agencies applied the 30 by 30 gap classifications across their lands, we now understand that even more land under our management could be classified as gap one, signifying the strongest protection measures.

Many ecosystems in the California State Park system have been impacted by historic uses, and, for example, thousands of acres of state park forests have been impacted or unhealthy due to statewide historic fire suppression practices, and additionally, many state parks were acquired following industry and resource extraction and requiring the removal of legacy infrastructure like logging roads, as well as ongoing ecosystem restoration and stewardship, such as the removal of invasive species.

Some coastal parks contain remnant dune systems from historic uses, and state park staff have developed methods to restore these important ecosystems to provide habitat to endangered species, which we have seen improving their breeding success, and we have developed resilient strategies to sea level rise. Many of these highlighted advances have been made possible by the generosity of voters through periodic bonds or the foresight of the Legislature with deferred maintenance allocations.

More recently, this work has been supported by major statewide investments in climate resilience and wildfire and forest resilience. This is really critical not only in protecting parks, but in protecting the communities in the vicinity and adjacent to state parks. Yet, our ongoing and dedicated funding to maintain the restoration advances is always needed to assure restored lands, and we continue to contribute to the statewide biodiversity goals. State Lands has an internal working group and an interdepartmental team of high level managers.

Prioritizing acquisitions while acquisitions is a slow, multiparty process that requires significant due diligence, State Parks works to ensure that each acquisition is vital and meets multiple goals reflected in 30 x 30. State Parks has recently acquired and advanced significant new acquisitions, and our newest state park is Dos Rios Ranch in Stanislaus County. This new park will allow the return of natural floodplain processes, literally putting water back into an aquifer, wetland, and riparian restoration.

And this park will also provide habitat for many native species, including rare and endangered species such as a riparian brush rabbit. And actually, there's birds that have returned to this area that haven't in some cases been seen in 60 years, and we didn't have to reintroduce them. Just restoring this area attracted native species back into this habitat. The governor's January budget also includes an opportunity to connect and restore adjoining parklands by protecting the Sonoma Development Center.

There are real challenges associated with acquiring new properties for the State Park system, including both ongoing operation and maintenance costs of these new acquisitions, as well as the department's significant deferred maintenance backlog of over $1.0 billion. Therefore, the department is focusing on increased programming and evaluating the feasibility of infill projects that won't increase the department's operations cost.

While we work to support the 30 x 30 goals, State Parks is working as aggressively as possible to restore ecosystem health across the State Park system, and this is supported by the administration's investment in climate resilience, wildfire, forest resilience, and biodiversity conservation. For example, State Parks is advancing forest health through stewardship, forestry, and prescribed burns across more than 100 state park units across the state. The Department has also been able to support wildlife management, floodplain reconnection, and watershed restoration.

State Parks has been able to implement hundreds of ecosystem restoration projects across degraded riparian, mountain meadow and coastal ecosystems. Over the last 15 years, the administration's 2021 budget included $500 million in grants to local communities. This is not within the state parks, but it's actually in towns and cities across California. And these grants were for parks infrastructure and programming, including, and programming, rather, including transportation and education, as well as 500 million to expand access to state parks and other state facilities through infrastructure and program improvements.

The department funded 112 projects for $548,000,000, which ended up creating 50 new parks within communities. At the nine state vehicular recreation areas, we provide motorized access in a way that conserves and improves wildlife habitat over time. We use wildlife habitat protection plans to describe species conservation actions in an adaptive management framework to advance a long term commitment to raise stewardship values on even the most heavily used recreational areas.

State parks balances the 30 x 30 objectives of high quality recreation with protecting and restoring the state's most valuable natural and cultural resources. This balance has always presented a challenge, but it is a duality at the center of our mission, requiring us to make our rare and restored lands accessible to a diverse public.

With the leadership of the administration and the support of you, the legislators, we've been able to advance the objectives of climate resilience by accelerating the pace and scale of our stewardship activities to restore degraded systems, support biological diversity, and foster resilience. State Parks has also been a leader in expanding California's access for all efforts through public access to the outdoors.

The department has supported this work through expanded programming, including the successful California State Parks Library pass, adventure passes for fourth graders and their families, and the Golden Bear Pass for disadvantaged communities. Together, these three programs, with the legislative support, has created over 93,000 passes across California for individuals from these groups, including people who visit libraries. There are many places and parks across the state where the department actively works with federal partners on natural resources stewardship.

We also work with them with restoration and recreational access efforts. We have seen these collaborative efforts increase access to funding from both federal and state and even private sources. For example, at Redwood National and State.

Director Quintero, would you mind closing just for purposes? Thank you.

Okay, I'm there. Well, I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to speak with all of you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee for this opportunity.

Thank you so much, Director Quintera. That was very informative. Thank you to all our Governor officials today. We will now move to questions for this panel. Do any of my colleagues have questions? Senator Laird.

Thank you I'd just like to follow up with the Secretary on a comment I made in the opening comments. Given the testimony of the for view, when could we expect to get to recommendations on the budget money or a process for the budget to, what's your timeframe for getting to the end?

Yeah, thanks so much, Senator Laird. And I should have said, well, now that I'm talking to you directly, thanks for all the work you did for eight years in this role, and I feel like we're standing on your shoulders with a lot of what we're able to do. You rightly pointed out that the proposed budget that the Administration presented in January does include proposed cuts in this area, and we look forward to the conversation of both explaining those cuts and working them through with you.

I envision that happens through the budget process later this week. We initiate review, or the budget subcommittee over our budget initiates its review of the proposed budget. So those conversations begin on Thursday, and I view the discussion, the dialogue on this budget and how it impacts 30 x 30, really playing out through that budget committee process and then ultimately with the broader Legislature in May and June.

Does that mean that sort of the answer to the question is a budget question, that if we actually appropriate money you expect in the year we appropriate it, that there would be some process for sending it out the door?

Well, I don't know if this directly answers your question, but I'll answer it directly as I can. Our goal, once the Legislature and the Governor appropriate the funding, is to spend it as efficiently as possible. So we really pride ourselves on getting funding out the door in many areas of our agency budget faster than we ever have, given the threats we faced and the opportunities and the urgency of all these challenges.

So our goal is as you appropriate funding to get it out the door as quickly as possible and practicable and obviously as effective as possible. So we'll look to the Legislature and the Governor ultimately to decide what funding gets changed, and then our goal is implementing that funding.

And the four of you all talked about process. And the answer to this question that you just did implies that the process will be ripe at some point in the budget year to be able to make actual grants or appropriations. Is that what you were saying about getting the money out the door in the budget year.

Director Bonham?

Yes, with an exclamation point. Secretaries, plural. And Senator, just using our department as an example and acknowledging these will be questions in budget subcommittee for sure. When one thinks about 30 x 30, the governor's investments, the Secretary Crowfoot leadership, we've maintained a lot of our nature based solution investments in the current cycle. So, for example, we have $42 million to invest in wildlife corridor improvements around the state. We have $35 million for nature based solutions.

And for beaver lovers out there, that's the funding source for us to do co-management with tribes and bring beavers back to the landscapes. We've kept our $54 million for wetlands and mountain meadows restoration, and we have $100 million as another example to invest in Salmon. Our department is poised, as we're going through the coming weeks and months to show how all those funds will make a direct difference on the landscape with partners.

And let me ask a follow up question, because I chair the education budget subcommittee, not resources. Are the specific pots you just mentioned part of the 30 x 30 appropriation? Are those separate pots that are in your budget that really complement what is going on with 30 x 30.

Yeah, maybe I'd make just. And Jen, you may be able to correct me, but a lot of the funding that you all have provided over the last couple of years certainly advances 30 x 30, but also other key priorities. So the way I see it, in my understanding, there hasn't been, within the annual budget process, necessarily a 30 x 30 bucket. What we've done is we've rolled up all of the investments that contribute to our 30 x 30 target or help us meet the 30 x 30 target.

So the buckets or the funding sources that Director Bonham referenced contribute to 30 x 30, but obviously they are not within sort of a specific appropriation of 30 x 30. Jennifer, is that correct?

Yeah, I just want to add, I mentioned that we had these listening sessions and this information gathering, and one of our key questions was, what are the programs that are already delivering conservation across the state? And there are a multitude. So our approach, rather than creating a brand new 30 x 30 program, was to invest in the existing pathways to conservation that are already ongoing and successful. So the Director Bonham mentioned the Wildlife Conservation Board.

That is one of our most effective organizations for getting conservation on the ground. So our intention is provide funding to those kinds of programs and work with them to make sure that they're achieving our 30 x 30 objectives, which is already happening. And much of the money that was appropriated last year is already out the door or on its way to be appropriated or to be spent as we speak. So we are effectively sort of using existing strategies.

We just wanted to note that we have 10 minutes left for this session.

Then I'll just ask one follow up question, and that is, as you go, each of the four of you outlined sort of the process you're following. And yet it sounds like from just the previous exchange that all this money is going out the door already. So is some of the process happening after money is going out the door and isn't going to directly guide it, or is that complementary as well?

I would say a couple of things. One is, as Jennifer noted, this 30 x 30 effort continues and accelerates and expands conservation already underway. So the Wildlife Conservation Board, for example, has been allocating funding really effectively for years and decades, and that's going to continue thanks to your leadership, the Legislature's leadership, Governor, we now have significantly more funding to ramp up that conservation. So even as we were developing 30 by.

Looks like we have a glitch. Do any of the other panelists want to pick up where Secretary Crowfoot was leaving us?

It's complementary. Senator Laird, in my view.

The funding that continues on conservation.

He's back.

And then I would just say soon with an annual report and sharing with you the progress on 30 x 30 and adaptively managing. So I think, Senator, over time, our funding will be shaped by adaptive management, by your priorities, by your legislation. But the good news is we're already charging down the field, expanding conservation to achieve 30 x 30.

I appreciate the exchange. Thanks for the chair's indulgence. And I think the whole exchange just emphasizes our hope that it moves to specific outcomes as quickly as possible. And it sounds like there's a good path. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. A couple of quick questions may get a little granular. The first one is relevant, I think. Ultimately to where we might think.

In terms of budget and allocation of resources and the timeline in order to be strategic, given the overall goal, have we given thought in the implementation of the framework that pathways suggests where some of the strategies that have been articulated may in fact be incongruent or non complementary in terms of the overarching goal here, which is to address directly the extinction crisis by enhancing and restoring biodiversity and protecting ecosystems?

I'm speaking particularly about some of the strategies articulated about access, because we all know that there are occasions, in fact, where limited access or restricting access is actually the action required to enhance the conservation goal. And yet it's articulated within the strategies as an important value. And the framework points out all the personal health benefits and social benefits and environmental benefits of access, and wholly understand that. Have we given thought to how we achieve balancing there?

Because that may be very relevant to how strategic we are in the timing of where we put resources. In other words, there may be cases where enhancing access is actually incongruent with achieving the conservation goal? And then, secondly, I note that in the framework, we've included, at least at this point, automatically, the inclusion of state and federal parklands and deeming them as fitting the initial description of being conserved.

But it also points out the fact that where some of these federal and state parks or designated preserved lands may be under resourced or undermanaged, they may actually not add any actual benefit to the conservation goal. And are we thinking about sort of a protocol where we may have a threshold standard to either include those in the total goals for conserved lands for the purposes of the conservation goals, or excluding them? My understanding is right now they're automatically sort of included in the totals. But are we thinking about a process by which we might actually have to set a different set of standards?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator, appreciate both questions. Excellent questions. From my view, the first one is to your point, about balance. When we talk about these three goals of 30 x 30 conservation for biodiversity, but also to connect people with lands and advance climate action, you're right, not every specific action or piece of land will necessarily achieve each of those goals, and in some cases they do contradict. So, for example, we're having conditions this winter that may lead to a super bloom of flowers.

So you're hearing a lot of caution about us explaining that while this is beautiful and there are opportunities to see this, we want to be careful that folks don't go out there and destroy the biodiversity that everybody wants to appreciate. So we view this much more as a portfolio approach, where we have lands that, yes, need to be protected as very sensitive lands that might limit public access or human access.

But there are also great opportunities where land acquisition is important to provide access, for example, to a community that doesn't have a lot of parks or open space, that also has at least some biodiversity benefit. So then, in seven years time, when you look at all of the conservation that's happened, I think we'll look at as a portfolio where there are some actions and lands that maybe hit all three targets and some that hit one. But it's really that portfolio approach.

Second question and then I'll turn to my colleagues. You raise a really good point about the ongoing stewardship of these conserved lands. And I know Director Bonham and Director Quintero would agree that continues to be an ongoing challenge in our state. We need to make sure that our resource agencies are funded to actually maintain those lands. And so right now, the criteria for inclusion, the 30 x 30 definition, is durable conservation for ecological benefit.

But I think you raise a fair point, which is we need to make sure that those lands, once conserved or that are conserved, are managed effectively for continued benefit. I just think that's a good open question moving forward. But Director Bonham and others.

Yeah, Senator, I'll give you two examples that follow Secretary Crowfoot's response. First, yes, there can be moments that you're working through potential conflict between land use and land designation. But I think we shouldn't forget, at least for our department, historically, we have a lot of ground to cover on creating equitable access to nature in our existing ownership.

So as a result, we're right now funding into our own properties, 15 of them, where we used all the appropriate screening analytical tools to identify properties we own near disadvantaged communities and we're funding into those properties. New parking areas, picnic tables, trails, interpretive materials, and on the interpretive front, are working with tribal leaders to use our signage as a way to advance that aspect of education and outreach so we can do more already with what we have on the improved access front.

And then, just since April of 22, we used $15 million in grant funding to close on 6ft title acquisitions of about 6500 acres. To figure out which six transactions we used three screening tools. Would we be acquiring land that could achieve a significant net benefit to the natural resource? And in some cases, the transaction included a commitment to increased management and we were able to make the transaction financing help create that uplift for management.

We funded transactions where we were acquiring properties contiguous to already conserved lands to expand the benefit. And then we acquired properties that were about a specific rare type of species only found there and nowhere else. So there is ways to prioritize in that transaction space that get to your question.

I might add just a couple of things. One of them is that the agreements that we've been putting together with tribes really is bringing in the knowledge and the teamwork of tribal communities that live and work in the parks and around the parks that we're managing. The Yurok up north in the north coast redwoods area, the Amah Mutsun down in the Santa Cruz area, and the Washoe up in the Tahoe area. We have agreements there where they're actually co managing the landscape with us.

So I think we're looking for ways of not only being efficient, but bringing in partners and knowledge that really advances our abilities to do effective protection. Another thing that we do is we work with landscape scale networks where we create formal partnerships with adjacent land managers so that we're literally comanaging the larger ecosystem of which state parks are apart.

And I will finish by saying that keeping track of the metrics of the species and the health of the systems that we manage is a daily and regular task for us, as well as balancing public access. That's always something that we've got our eyes on.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Anything else? Thank you. We're over time, but I'm going to exercise the Chair's prerogative and ask a few more questions. I just ask you to keep your answers brief, and maybe we can hold off on specific examples. My first question to you all. Your own administration has estimated that we need 6 million acres of additional lands to meet our goals of 30 x 30. This is following up on this questions from my colleague, Senator Laird.

The Nature Conservancy has estimated that will cost about $1.0 billion a year if we want to meet the goal. I just wanted to get a sense of what's out the door. Dr. Norris, I think you'd mentioned that we spent $95 million right now in land acquisition. Is this $1.0 billion figure consonant with your understanding of the estimate? And given the huge gap between what's out the door and what we are going to need, how do we make up that shortfall? And that really can go to Dr. Norris or Secretary Crowfoot or anyone else.

I'd start off at a high level, being very brief is I don't think that there's one prescriptive answer to exactly how much money it will take, because these pathways, depending on how we implement them, cost different amounts of money. So, for example, one of the pathways is improving conservation on federal lands, public lands. If we're able to do that in partnership with the Biden Administration, that wouldn't be an acquisition that costs money, but that could potentially generate a lot of land under 30 x 30. Likewise, if we can expand mitigation.

So, for example, when transportation projects are built, they're actually optimizing the mitigation for more conserved land. And that's another way we're going to actually move towards that 6 million acres without significant new funding. But I do think, generally speaking, we're going to continue to need General Fund contributions in coming years. I don't think, though, that there's an answer that we can identify exactly how much now. Jennifer?

Those are the exact same points I would make. Mitigation and working with our federal partners are two great pathways that don't actually require any change to what we're going to funding.

Just a quick follow up then, given what's out the door right now, forgetting the money figure, just as far as the land acquisition we need, how many acres have we acquired? What are we on track for, say, by 2027?

Our annual report is due out in the next couple of months. So we're tabulating those acres right now. We don't have them at our fingertips. I'm sorry.

Do you have a ballpark?.

I don't. I'm sorry.

It's not like 100,000, is it a million?

It's many more than 100,000. I think the Wildlife Conservation Board has probably moved that many acres through this year. And then we need to think about all the mitigation and then any federal action. So it's a suite of tabulations we. Still need to make.

Thank you. And then given the discussion about federal partnerships, I was curious if you could comment, any of you could comment briefly on opportunities for federal funding. Given some of the things that passed recently with the BIF, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund, can any of those funds be repurposed or used for purposes of 30 x 30?

Absolutely. Just this morning, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced another $15 million available in the Klamath Basin under The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. And our department, thanks to the Legislature and the governor's leadership, has an available 20 million to invest in tributaries in that watershed. So overnight, 15 turns into 35.

Thank you. Director Bonham, last question. I think, Secretary Crowfoot, during your testimony, you mentioned that this is a voluntary effort. It's not a government program, it's not a legislative policy. And I guess I just want to ask you, would it be helpful if we had a government policy or legislation to this effect? And in particular, would something like a set of interim goals that put more teeth around the voluntariness of what we're trying to accomplish be helpful in trying to reach 30 x 30?

I'm concerned about the gap between where we are and where we're trying to get to. And I'm just curious about your thoughts on whether interim goals are needed or helpful, whether some kind of legislative push out of this body would be helpful.

It's a great question. Let me first clarify when I use the word voluntary, what I meant is in the implementing measures, those would be voluntary in the sense of landowners would voluntarily participate. There has been a line of reasoning among some that somehow 30 x 30 is going to be a government directive to assume ownership of private lands. And I want to be very clear that that is not the case and any arguments being identified as such are simply not valid.

We don't view this as voluntary, at least within the Newsom Administration, because our Governor has directed us to do this. So each of us in the remainder of our time here will be focused on this as one of his key priorities. You rightly point out that 30 x 30 has not been enshrined into state law, and I would leave that to policymakers around whether it would make sense to do that. That's sort of above my pay grade.

Well, would it be helpful?

Yeah. As it relates to. Well, I'll tell you this, we're putting every ounce of energy and focus and authority we have to move forward 30 x 30, and I think we'll demonstrate progress in the report that we have. There's a broader question about the durability after this Governor, but we're really focused on serving this Governor in his direction he's given to us. And then as it relates to interim targets, I think that's a topic for further discussion.

I think one thing we want to make sure is to maintain the flexibility to be creative across these pathways. So, for example, we're in some really interesting conversations with our federal partners about how to conserve or improve conservation on public lands. So I appreciate the accountability you're going to demand on us to demonstrate progress. And if you're willing, I think we can continue the conversation about how the Legislature could be supportive to that progress.

But at this point, I wouldn't endorse the specific notion of, let's say, sub targets because I worry that that impacts our ability to creatively manage to achieve our goal.

Thank you, Secretary I appreciate that. And I would just add, I hope this is an iterative conversation, because I would encourage you to think about the ways in which legislation might be helpful. I think you've heard from a number of folks about some of the concerns we here have about the progress towards 30 x 30. And I know you're working hard to try to make this a reality.

But to the extent that we legislate here and that legislation could be helpful to your cause, we'd love to partner with you. Thank you so much for your time today. Thank you for presenting, and my apologies to the second panel for going over, but we're going to hear from the Members of our second panel next. And so our first presenter there is Dr. Jun Bando, Executive Director of the California Native Plant Society. Welcome, Dr. Bando.

Chairman Min, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss progress toward meeting California's 30 x 30 goal. My name is Dr. Jun Bando. I'm here as the Executive Director of the California Native Plant Society, as an ecologist, and as a former policy practitioner who has spent much of my career working on complex global issues. Working with partners around the world has deepened my appreciation for the critical roles that leadership and unity of effort play in tackling society's most urgent challenges.

And it has strengthened my belief in California's exceptionalism. Today, California and the world face the twin existential crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. In the past, biodiversity conservation was often seen as a luxury, but today we broadly understand that protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change are two sides of the same coin, and they require solutions that engage all sectors of our government and society. California is fortunate to have one of the most comprehensive and inclusive 30 x 30 strategies of any government in the world.

That's largely due to the leadership of many who are here today. I thank Governor Newsom and his administration, our dedicated partners at the California Natural Resources Agency, our legislative champions who fight to keep this issue at the forefront, and our many partners across the state who have brought us to this point today. California's leadership was evident on the global stage in December when the international community convened in Montreal for COP 15, the 15th conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity.

Even as an observer and not a signatory to the convention, California provided much needed leadership at a time when our Federal Government's presence was limited.

The California Native Plant Society, CNPS, joined California's extended delegation to COP 15, and we were greatly encouraged by the landmark biodiversity framework it produced, which included a global 30 x 30 target, the 30 x 30 movement, as we've heard today, is rooted in broad scientific consensus that conserving 30% of lands and oceans as a near term goal towards 50% is the minimum action required to curb extinction and avoid the worst impacts from climate change.

A minimum of 30% and as much as 70% of lands and waters must be protected to safeguard biodiversity and stabilize the planet's climate. Conservationists hope that with 50% protection, we can save 80% of biodiversity. But we must act now and with great resolve. Worldwide, more than 1 million species are at risk of extinction, and wild vertebrate populations have dropped 69% since 1970. California is in one of the world's 36 biodiversity hotspots, and we have the highest concentration of imperiled species in the United States.

Here, it's important to clarify that conservation itself isn't the ultimate goal. The protection of biodiversity, the integrity of the natural world, and understanding our place in nature, these are the outcomes we're pursuing, and they are interconnected. To protect biodiversity is to ensure our own survival. This is the work of our lifetimes. Many of us are decades into this work. My organization, CNPS, was founded in 1965 to protect California's native plants.

We also know that when we save native plants and their habitats, we save the myriad life that depends on them. The diversity of ecosystems underwrites their resilience and, in turn, our human resilience. Healthy forests are less vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire. Intact wetlands help absorb flooding before it reaches communities. California's undisturbed deserts and other habitats store vast amounts of carbon.

For all of these reasons, CNPS has been a strong partner in statewide biodiversity efforts, contributing to the initial biodiversity roadmap, helping to lead the power in nature 30 x 30 coalition, participating in the California Biodiversity Network and leading critical science to identify the most important plant areas we must protect to sustain biodiversity. And as Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-82-20 recognizes, people of all backgrounds are at the heart of this important work, and we must center equity in this work.

On behalf of CMPS and many partners and scientists involved in 30 x 30, I offer thoughts on three key areas we believe will help to advance the strategy this year. The first area is prioritization. California already leads most places, with 24% of our lands conserved at gap one or gap two status. To be conserved at gap one or gap two status means being permanently protected with a management plan to maintain a natural or primarily natural state.

California is using a rigorous definition of conservation that my organization and more than 60 others in the Power In Nature Coalition strongly support. Under this definition, we know that we must conserve 6 million additional acres in the next seven years. But we haven't yet defined how to select that 6 million from the many more millions of acres that could qualify, or whether the acres currently protected are representative of California's plants, animals, and places.

The state's pathways to 30 by 30 clearly frames our shared goals of biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, and equitable access to nature. But clearly defined goals, objectives, and commitments are not enough in the assessment of many scientists. The success of this strategy will also hinge on developing priorities for the inclusion of additional protected areas. Unless California states its priorities for inclusion, the ad hoc process that results in protecting areas primarily located away from marginalized communities is likely to continue.

We need to systematically identify which areas must be added to connect areas for plants and animals to live and move, and to connect people currently excluded from the benefits of biodiversity to essential nature. Developing these priorities will require understanding where we have the greatest gaps in our biodiversity, climate, and equitable access goals. We will need to de-clarify the mix of protections we are seeking. What is the appropriate balance of acquisition easements, land management, or protection level changes?

What distributions are we seeking geographically or by habitat type? Without that clarity in how we will achieve our shared goals, we are in danger of defaulting to whatever is shovel ready, putting the success of the strategy at risk. The good news is that significant work is already underway that could inform the development of prioritization criteria. In addition to what we've heard this morning, an example is the work that the Power In Nature Coalition is doing to aggregate and evaluate potential conservation projects.

My organization also provided some suggested criteria in Appendix A of last year's CNPS comment letter on the pathways report. In addition to defining priorities for inclusion, we need to apply the best available science.

And that brings me to my second recommendation, which is to apply investments in science and data gathering to close key data gaps, including in biodiversity metrics, 40% of California's vegetation has yet to be mapped at the fine scale required to understand current plant communities and how they are changing in response to extreme wildfire, drought, and other climate impacts. Gaps in data on rare plants and animals also limit our ability to protect what's most threatened.

In addition to closing key data gaps, continuing to strengthen interagency alignment will also improve our ability to leverage the best available science. This includes expanding work through crossagency teams, building common data architecture, and developing shared terminology and priorities. Establishing minimum standards and policy incentives across agencies will enhance new protections and facilitate the application of best practices.

We also urge the state to continue clarifying the roles of individual departments and strengthening the connections between important initiatives like 30 x 30, Outdoors For All and the Climate Smart Land Strategy. Lastly, we're grateful to the Legislature and the administration for last year's historic investments in California's climate package. Now is the time to double down on those investments. But the January budget proposal tells another story. My third recommendation addresses funding.

CNPF and more than 60 other groups recently submitted a joint letter to legislative and Administration leaders to communicate our deep concern over the disproportionate cuts to natural resources and conservation in the proposed 2023/24 budget. Funding for conservancies, capacity building, and vegetation mapping are a necessity, not a luxury, and we encourage you to restore this funding. We have work to do, and we cannot accomplish it through a re-bucketing of business as usual.

We must prioritize our efforts, apply the best available science, and invest the resources needed to fully implement this strategy. Our success is essential to the well being of every person living in California and to future generations. My organization and many others are counting on you to set the conditions for success in meeting our 30 x 30 goals. Thank you for your leadership and for the opportunity to speak with you today.

Thank you, Dr. Bando. And you were like, almost exactly at 10 minutes. Appreciate that. Next we'll hear from Karla Garibay Garcia, Senior Conservation Manager for Azul. Welcome, Ms. Garcia.

Thank you and good morning, Members and staff of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. My name is Karla Garibay Garcia and I'm the Senior Conservation Manager for Azul. My background is in environmental science and coastal marine resource management, and I'm an avid ocean recreationist who grew up with Mexico and California's stunning beaches as my backyard.

My family instilled a deep cultural connection and appreciation for the ocean, and this is why I'm proud to work for Azul to bring Latino perspectives and environmental justice to ocean conservation in California, across the nation, and internationally. We appreciate the invitation to share Azul's perspective on 30 x 30 implementation thus far, an initiative that we see as an excellent opportunity to protect nature with people, not keep our communities from nature, and to integrate equity into conservation decision making.

Three years ago, when we co sponsored AB 3030 with Assemblymember Kalra and our partners at Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife and NRDC to enshrine 3030 into law and to cement the intention to conserve nature with and for BIPOC and economically disadvantaged communities who have historically faced disproportionate barriers to accessing nature and have not been able to equitably participate in decision making. Regarding the stewardship of nature, we've emphasized that access to nature and a healthy environment should be a right for all people.

We noted that the 30 x 30 goal needed to be met through equitable stakeholder engagement and by responding to the needs and priorities of BIPOC and economically disadvantaged communities. Above all, that, the 30 x 30 implementation must honor and uphold the sovereignty of tribal nations through formal government to government consultation and partnership. Soon after that bill was held in the Legislature, Governor Newsom's Executive order established California as the first us state to commit to 30 x 30, with the same emphasis on equity.

Since then, we've seen broad stakeholder support from youth and scientists to community based groups and business, and continued outreach to agencies to integrate equity into 30 x 30 implementation. California's natural resources are a shared heritage that must be stored it for future generations. No single individual or entity is more entitled to access or benefit from them than another. We emphasize this in a recently sponsored Bill with Assemblymember Kalra.

Despite this fact, we have seen extractive industries falsely claim ownership over the ocean and nature repeatedly throughout 30 x 30 discussions. But extractive industries do not own nature. It's time to move away from a system that allows industry to benefit at the expense of the public's right to enjoy the benefits of our coast, ocean, and nature.

In fact, we know that out of the roughly 109 million trips to the coast that Californians take each year, most are to simply enjoy nature through walking, bird watching, spending time with family, or photography. We've also seen that extractive ocean users that have never been marginalized co-op the terms equitable access and environmental justice to oppose 30 x 30 implementation.

But it's important to note that ensuring equitable access for communities that have been historically marginalized and excluded from the ocean and decision making about the ocean is completely different from the co-opted access that extractive industry folks tau is under threat by 30 x 30. We know that conflating extractive users for environmental justice stakeholders in 30 x 30 will set a dangerous precedent in California and beyond.

As such, we urge decision makers to remember that environmental justice is a remedy and that throughout 30 x 30 implementation, we must prioritize the voices and the needs of real environmental justice stakeholders, which are BIPOC communities, economically disadvantaged communities, and other marginalized groups that have historically and continue to face disproportionate injustices and lack of access to nature. Throughout this process.

We regularly engage our partners at the Ocean Protection Council on this, and we're so grateful for Deputy Secretary Jenn Eckerle's leadership and personal commitment to ensuring that 30 x 30 implementation in our coastal waters does not place unsuitable burdens on our most vulnerable communities and instead disrupts the exclusionary and discriminatory patterns of the past. Over the last two years, we've seen Secretary Crowfoot, Deputy Secretary Norris, and Deputy Secretary Everly put considerable effort towards stakeholder engagement, and we're so grateful for that.

In the first year following Governor Newsom's Executive order, CNRA released the California Nature GIS mapping tool Access Explorer, which shows that only about 6% of California's population live within a half a mile of a publicly accessible land area considered conserved under the 30 x 30 definition in the pathways document. That's only about 2.5 million people out of 39 and a half million Californians. What this means is that many Californians still continue to lack access to quality green space.

Very few communities in low income areas are within a 10 minute walk to a park, and park acres, as it turns out, are very good at buffering the effects of climate change. Green space has the potential to lower air temperature, absorb floodwater, and parks can be designed in such a way to significantly enhance the climate benefits that they can provide.

The Access Explorer tool is a great first step, but we fully support the CNRA process to strengthen it so it can contribute to the goals outlined in the pathways document. For example, in addition to population demographics surrounding conserved areas, we also think it'd be helpful for the tool to provide information about conserved areas, public access policies, visitation data, recreational opportunities, public transportation options and as far as we know, the access explorer only includes conserved areas on land.

But adding conserved areas and coastal waters would also allow us to analyze demographic data for the populations living near marine protected areas that can potentially access them. There have been many discussions, funding, and programs launched to further access public lands, but there have been much less transparency or actionable plans about how to run assessments on equity and improvements for accessing the coast and ocean, and how all of that will be approached.

For example, CNRA convened an equity advisory panel, which put forth great recommendations to increase equity through land management. However, an equivalent ocean focused advisory panel was not convened to recommend ways to increase equity through ocean management policies. From Azul's federal 30 x 30 engagement we know how important it is for California to set a high bar. Unfortunately, California is not yet balancing the objectives of protecting biodiversity, increasing access to nature, and mitigating and building resilience to climate change equally.

For example, the pathways document automatically counted the full MPA network to work 30 x 30 before the decadal management review of the network was released, and without analysis of whether the network met the climate or access objectives. We know that the key pathway for expanding the California MPA network is through the decadal management review process at the Fish and Game Commission, and we're engaging in that process. And like Director Bonham mentioned, the science shows that the network protections are working.

However, there's still a need to articulate an equitable public process associated with their reviews decision making. The pathways document also specified that the access and climate criteria would only be integrated into a selection of additional 30 x 30 conservation areas and implemented into currently conserved areas whenever possible and appropriate. But that process for all of this is yet to be discussed, and we look forward to more clarity and transparency about that.

While we fully acknowledge the difficulty in crafting an actionable definition for conserved, we strongly believe that there's an opportunity to develop access and climate criteria that can complement the biodiversity center definition of conserved and that this can serve as a gold standard for the world.

Effective marine protections are a prerequisite to equitable access to the coast and ocean, and if 30 x 30 is to be successful in arresting biodiversity loss and providing the benefits that our most vulnerable communities need, then implementation must extend beyond the low hanging fruit. Fortunately, we have decades of research that demonstrate that highly and fully protected marine areas are more effective for biodiversity conservation and climate resilience than minimally protected areas, and that well managed, strong protections often result in positive visitor experiences and tourism benefits.

By making the ocean healthier and more resilient to climate impacts, strong protections preserve everyone's ability to enjoy these areas and the ocean, live within them through a variety of recreational activities far into the future.

In terms of funding, we really think that it's critical to continue funding the agencies doing this work to address equity across all dimensions of outer access, including resources to get to nature, the quality of people's experiences once they're there, initiatives that teach youth from underserved communities skills and safety, and robust water quality testing and reporting to ensure that Californians have access to a safe and healthy beach experience. We also hope that initiatives similar to the Justice 40 federal initiative are implemented across California.

Programs that contribute to 30 x 30 to ensure that benefits go to disadvantaged communities. And as you consider future appropriations, I urge you to remember the innumerable positive benefits to nature. The 30 x 30 initiative has the potential to safeguard biodiversity and break down barriers that have prevented or discouraged underserved communities from fully enjoying the benefits of nature. But implementing agencies need consistent funding, and to remember that it's not California's values to rest on our laurels.

We want to thank the state, the administration, and Legislature for its leadership thus far, and we look forward to advancing equitable access and strong protections alongside. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Next we'll hear from Daniel Garcia. I'm sorry. What? I'm sorry, Daniel Cordalis, there's a mistake on my note here. I'm sorry. Mr. Cordalis, Co-Principal for Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, and that's Ridges to Riffles, not rifles. So perhaps, Mr. Cordalis, you can explain to us what riffles are. Thank you.

Happy to. Thanks, Chairman. I appreciate the introduction. As you said, my name is Daniel Cordalis. I'm the co-principal for Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group.

I'll get the explanation in a second, but I wanted to thank you for inviting me to discuss opportunities and challenges for California tribes and engaging in the state's 30 x 30 initiative, conservation and restoration initiative that, to me, largely seeks to incorporate a tribal worldview and tribal traditional knowledge principles into conservation policy, same policy which has largely dismissed that same worldview for the past 150 years. I'm Diné.

I'm an enrolled Member of the Navajo Nation, and I'm an attorney working on behalf of tribal governments and communities through a new organization called Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group. We created Ridges to Riffles. And a riffle is a little, I wouldn't call it a rapid. It's a little up and down on the river where you get a little bit of movement over rocks. That's what a riffle is. It's very different than a rifle.

We created Ridges to Riffles to support tribal natural and cultural resource priorities, work that is critical to the protection of tribal rights and cultural identities, but work that often requires additional policy expertise to navigate the regulatory and sometimes legal obstacles relevant to the hearing today, where I'll primarily draw my remarks from. I've been fortunate to have worked with the near Yurok tribe on national resource issues off and on since 2014, including fisheries and water litigation, forestry planning, carbon projects, and land acquisitions.

More than just a job, I have a personal stake in the work, as my wife and three young boys are Yurok tribal members, and our family lives up and down the Yurok reservation along the Klamath River. We work to protect and restore the tribes and lands and natural resources so my kids and family can live with the land as our ancestors have done since the beginning of time.

This is the goal of tribal land stewardship, also been able to serve my tribe, Navajo Nation, and its involvement in the Bear's Ears national monument, where a coalition of five tribes is working together with federal land agencies to manage 1.36 million acres of federal land in southeast Utah. With Yurok, I helped the tribe complete two significant land transactions to acquire ancestral lands lost during the late 19th and early 20th century allotment area lost to timber companies.

Through that ownership, the reservation was cut up into heavily timber harvested areas, forest lands were overgrown, the rivers and streams channelized, and species were pushed onto the endangered species list. The Yurok people also lost their place in the forest, not being able to use the land as they always had for subsistence and cultural purposes, and as forest stewards and the landscapes suffered through the reacquisition of approximately 60,000 acres of land along the Klamath.

Over the course of nearly a decade of hard work, the tribe is now reasserting sovereignty over its ancestral land and through restoration projects working to bring back the balance that once existed, including the Yurok people's place in that balance. This is precisely what is now referred to as land back. The Yurok is not done.

Timber companies still own significant parts of the reservation lands and continue to create ecological problems to their forestry practices, making the tribe's reacquisition and restoration work even more important in restoring the region's biodiversity. The lessons we learned from the transactions, and continue to learn as restoration and forest management activities are ongoing, are instructive and shed light on how the state's 30 x 30 initiative can best support tribes across the state. To this end, I will take up my testimony in two parts.

First, the state's position in state's proposed tribal nature based solutions program and second, overarching tribal conservation obstacles, needs, and ideas for future support. But to be clear, I do not speak for any tribe, and I offer my thoughts based on only my own experiences. I'm focusing these remarks on the importance of the state's 30 x 30 initiative, an initiative my organization and many tribes support.

I'm not here to criticize details of the initiative or draft program, although there are areas for improvement and likely many opinions on how to do that. Thematically, however, I do want to borrow from and support comments Yurok provided the state about this 30 x 30 initiative.

With the creation of the 30 x 30 plan, Yurok writes, it appears that California is closer than ever to forming a unified front, to not only respond to climate change and the impacts of this crisis, but to embrace a way of life that will ensure stability into the future. But of course, the 30 x 30 initiative cannot be made up of ideas alone, and we cannot stop critiquing these ideas along the way and learning to understand each other in good faith.

For California to change its very approach in systems of land and water management, there must be effective, ongoing dialogue with tribal nations. First, California tribes, like tribes nationally, have challenges to meet the call of a 30 x 30 initiative. California has 110 federally recognized tribes and many tribes seeking recognition. Tribal populations vary widely. Tribal land holdings vary widely. Tribal capacity to engage varies widely.

The state's history is uniquely unkind to its native inhabitants, as you know, and the state needs to grapple with it if it is going to act intentionally in creating and supporting opportunities for tribes to meaningfully engage in conservation efforts. Immediately after statehood and through the 1850s, when less than 20% of the native population remained, many lost. Right after the gold rush, California passed a series of laws pertaining to indigenous peoples.

It gave settlers the right to take custody of dated children, and settlers often killed the parents to do so, denied state citizenship to natives and denied voting rights and the right to testify in court. Peter Burnett, the state's first Governor, stated that a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct. Must be expected.

While we cannot anticipate this result, but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to affirt. Finally, the state dissent caused the US Senate to refuse to ratify the 18 treaties the Federal Government made with tribes, leaving the native population landless until the Federal Government used other means to create protected tribal areas. These unratified treaties were held in secrecy by Senate order for 45 years.

Still, many tribes have been successful in reclaiming their identities through self governance and economic opportunities and through assertion of their sovereign rights. To be sure, federal policy did not support tribal self determination to the late 1970s. Tribal governments are young and working hard to provide modern services to their citizens.

My point in offering this brief history is that it shows us that most California tribes are not starting from a neutral place or an empowered one, and that tribal policies, programs, and funding opportunities should be as strong as possible to help lift tribes up from the whole history forced them into as Secretary Crowfoot and Deputy Secretary Norris have noted, the Newsom Administration has made strong statements and commitments that show the state is trying to own up to its past and move in the right direction on native policy, especially toward native ancestral lands.

Over the last couple of years, there have been positive actions to support tribes. As Director of Quintero discussed, my sense is that the administration's commitments are genuine and the state has taken its charge to support tribes seriously. The question then is it enough? Probably not. But as a tribal advocate, I don't know if I would ever say any governmental actions are enough. Everything can be improved.

For instance, I have concerns that tribes will not be able to use the policy to achieve meaningful co management of the state's water resources, and I fear our salmon fisheries will continue to decline if tribal rights are balanced as if they are simply other stakeholder rights. Ecosystem resilience is invaluable, but the current water management system weighs against it and threatens some of the very things tribes are trying hardest to protect.

Still, the state has put in motion a tribal policy in a draft 30 x 30 program that unquestionably has the correct intention and priorities. The key is whether the program will have the continued support and ability to grow and adapt to meet the tribe's needs over time. Let me quickly summarize the state actions. The governor's September 22 policy statement encourages states to work with tribes to find co-management, land access, or land acquisition opportunities.

CNRA's pathways document supports this policy and specifically calls for strengthening tribal partnerships and creation of a tribal nature based solutions program. Recently, CNRA released that draft program. Key parts of this program include being available to federally and non federally recognized tribes in California and three grant funding priorities, planning for multi benefit nature based solutions, implementation of such projects, and the return of ancestral lands for the purposes of advancing such projects.

Second, I'll offer some overreaching tribal conservation obstacles and ideas for addressing those that achieve 30 by 30. The overarching policy of any tribal policy should be to empower tribes as governments into further self-determination. Policies should reflect the input of tribal nations through direct consultation, iterative discussion, co-creation. All procedures should respect the decision-making preferences of tribal governments as much as possible and not restrict or otherwise limit the ability of tribes to act as a sovereign nation.

Conservation is not new to tribes, but taking advantage of programs that allow tribes to engage in conservation at a meaningful scale is. In some ways, we need to build the framework for tribal participation, especially at the state level. Three things I want to offer as support for continuing success, as I'm running out of time. Support the planning needs for tribes: many tribes will not have identified lands or waterways they would like ownership or management of. Help with the acquisition: acquisitions are hard. They're very tricky.

They require specialized expertise, and many tribes don't have that expertise. Long-term support: this is the little discussed, the most important part of the land back because once you are able to achieve a conservation outcome, you get to sustain it. As I'm out of time, I just want to conclude that California tribes deserve a chance to retain, and in some places regain their connection to their ancestral lands and waters. Biodiversity includes humans and state's indigenous peoples.

30 by 30 is an opportunity for tribes to be included in state land management and conservation that has not existed since non-native settlement. While more can and should be done, I think the state's commitment to tribes is a strong start. I thank this Committee's interest in supporting the state's indigenous peoples in 30 by 30. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cordalis. Next, we'll hear from Mark Hennelly, Vice President of Government Relations for the California Waterfowl Association. Welcome, Mr. Hennelly.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Thank you.

Great. Hi there, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Mark Hennelly. I'm with California Waterfowl Association. Thank you for inviting me to provide my association's perspective. We also greatly appreciate the Natural Resources Agency's efforts to include us as part of the 30 by 30 Partnership Coordinating Committee. California Waterfowl is a 20,000 member nonprofit which restores and enhances wetlands and other waterfowl habitat. Relying on the best available science, we also work to protect and perpetuate our traditional outdoor heritage.

This includes providing hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational activities for the public on our own properties--we have a number up and down the state--as well as facilitating them on other private and public lands. Let me start by saying that we fully support the 30 by 30 objective to protect and restore biodiversity, which we believe is key to healthy ecosystems. The variety of Fish and Wildlife species is heavily influenced by habitat availability and quality, especially in a highly urbanized state like California.

Not surprisingly, habitat is also the most important factor affecting the sheer abundance of our game and fish populations. Simply put, conservation is impossible without suitable habitat. We have to have that. We also especially appreciate the 30 by 30 objective to increase and enhance public access to the outdoors. Finding high-quality, uncrowded places for people and their families to hunt and fish has become more difficult in the last several decades as more private and even some public lands have become restricted.

We do hunter surveys all the time, and I can tell you they consistently suggest that lack of adequate access is one of the primary reasons people don't hunt or even fish anymore. What is lost is not just a unique connection with nature, but also funding for wildlife conservation work due to reduced hunting and fishing license revenue, stamp and tag sales, as well as lost excise tax revenue from the federal Pittman-Robertson Act and the Sport Fish Restoration Act.

Hunting and fishing leases also, by the way, help keep farmers and ranchers--help them to maintain their financial solvency, and ultimately help them to keep their land as open space. So that's a positive, too. Outdoor opportunities also need to be more available to groups that have historically been underrepresented. The Fish and Wildlife of the state belongs to all Californians, and we need to do a better job, especially with hunting and fishing, of making those natural resources accessible regardless of socioeconomic background, race, or other factors.

Bringing awareness of outdoor opportunities and mentorship programs to underrepresented groups is critical. Greater funding for agencies like the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has programs specifically to educate and recruit folks into the outdoors, would be especially helpful. Humans have also, of course, been a part of the North American landscape for tens of thousands of years, taking fish and game, cultivating plants, and manipulating the environment by fire and other means.

This active, sustainable stewardship by people who now also have access to the best available science must, in our view, continue if we're going to maximize habitat values and properly manage wildlife populations. So, having said all that, we do remain somewhat apprehensive about how 30 by 30 will ultimately be implemented if it strays from the conservation element, which historically has meant the wise use of resources and instead favors preservation, which excludes human uses.

That will not only undermine the 30 by 30 objective of greater public access to nature, but it will even make it harder to achieve the biodiversity objective. Locking up public land, creating arbitrary hunting and fishing closures, or over-regulating private landowners simply isn't conservation, and that's hopefully the direction this will never go.

Our community has previously said that our engagement and support for 30 by 30 is reflective of the following values, so I'll reiterate those. One is the recognition of the positive role that hunting and fishing plays in conservation, protected area definitions that allow for well-managed and sustainable wildlife-dependent recreational activities, consideration of existing protected areas and measuring progress towards stated goals, targeted science-based conservation measures developed through a stakeholder-driven process to address biodiversity threats.

Lands and waters currently available for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing, should also remain open and available for participation unless reduced access is justified by science-based concerns, and also, clearly defined roles and authorities for the entities charged with carrying out 30 by 30.

So, to get specifically to some of the questions that were posed by the Committee in the letter that they sent, let me offer the following: first, we believe the Administration has done an excellent job thus far on outreach to the public and affected stakeholders. This has included ample opportunities for submitting comments in writing and attending webinars and other public meetings across the state. We also believe that the Administration has duly considered the comments and input that was offered.

We just urge that the Administration continue to solicit stakeholder input on 30 by 30 and make changes as new information comes to light. 30 by 30 needs to be a constantly evolving process if we are going to get it right. We also strongly agree with the key objectives and believe the strategies are thorough enough to accomplish them. However, we do believe the core commitments should additionally include a pledge to continue to partner and work cooperatively with the state's traditional conservation partners.

This includes nonprofit conservation groups and private landowners. There are some others, but those are the two main ones. Those folks who want to protect, restore, and enhance wildlife habitat do all the right things to support conservation. These parties have historically played a significant role in conservation in California and truly have the ability to provide meaningful biodiversity, outdoor access, and climate-related benefits. We also generally agree with what is included in the definition of conservation areas, especially that the land and water areas are managed.

With California's ecosystems forever altered by exotic species, climate change, and other factors, it's critical that the state actively manage areas to maximize ecological benefits. However, we are concerned about the requirement that such areas be durably protected. This phrase is largely undefined and could be interpreted to mean additional closures of lands and waters to public use, including hunting and fishing.

Recognizing all of the lands that are currently off-limits to hunting, such as game refuges, national and state parks, regional parks, and the fact that almost all game species are abundant enough to allow for sustainable harvest, there's really little scientific reason not to allow hunting in many areas that can safely provide for that use.

Adding a sentence to specify that conservation areas shall include the opportunity for hunting and fishing and other wildlife-dependent recreation unless there is a scientific or other legitimate reason not to permit those uses would be an appropriate change in our view. We also do not believe that the 30 by 30 goals should be put into statute. Rather, the goals should periodically be reassessed and modified as necessary by the Natural Resources Agency as conditions change and additional stakeholder input is provided and new information becomes available.

Putting the goals into legislation not only leaves them more susceptible to political influence, but it also makes it harder to modify them in a timely manner, in our view. And then we believe thus far that the Administration has done a good job of balancing the objectives of biodiversity access and climate change, which is really evidenced by that pathways document if you read through it. As AB 3030 is implemented, we especially hope that public outdoor access will remain a priority and not be subordinated.

Our fear is that particularly efforts to promote biodiversity could reduce public use, including hunting and fishing over time. This has happened many times before in California, so it's nothing new. In our view, biodiversity and providing hunting and fishing opportunities can be fully compatible through reasonable regulations. It just takes some work and creative thinking. So thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments today, and we have enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hennelly, and thank you to all our panelists on the second panel for your testimony today. I want to open this up to my Senate colleagues for any questions they might have. Senator Laird? Not having any questions, all right. I have a few then. So I just want to follow up on the questions I asked of the earlier panel. Let me just ask a general question for any and all of you.

Given some of the values that you place or some of your own priorities for the groups you represent, do you think the state is on track to meet the 30 by 30 goals from your perspective by the year 2030? And let's just start with you, Dr. Bando.

Thank you, Chairman Min, for the question. Regarding the question of whether the state is on track to meet our 30 by 30 goals, I would say yes, if we preserve existing commitments, yes, if we are able to set interim goals that ensure that we are working toward the stated goals in the 30 by 30 strategy. And so let me expand on that a bit. Without interim goals to guide our efforts, we face three potential scenarios.

The first scenario is one in which we fail to meet our 30 by 30 target for conserved areas. The second scenario is one in which we meet our conservation target of 30 by 30, but we fail to get the job done. We haven't met our biodiversity and access goals in particular. And the third scenario is one in which we do achieve our acreage target and we meet the goals of 30 by 30.

And that, again, is likely to require us to set interim goals and clear criteria to guide the inclusion of additional protected lands. So in addition to those interim goals, and in addition to protecting our existing commitments, the third area that I would point to as necessary for us to really be on track to meet 30 by 30 is adequately resourcing those parts of the state government that are charged with implementing, leading implementation of 30 by 30. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Dr. Bando. Ms. Garcia.

Yes. I just want to echo some of the comments that Dr. Bando made about the concern with just wanting to get to 30 percent by any means without really having environmental integrity and all the protections that we count toward 30 percent. I do think that we can get to 30 percent on the ocean side, which is the only sort of space that I can speak to, given Azul's priority work on the ocean.

But I do believe that to get to 30 percent, we need to establish a science-based framework for how we're going to adaptively manage and strengthen our MPA network. That process is part of what is going to be discussed at the Fish and Game Commission in the coming months.

And although we know that this is going to happen, we still need additional clarity about when certain decisions can be made, how the public can engage and provide input about which areas should be prioritized for protection, what should and should not be expanded or strengthened. But I do believe that we can get to 30 percent, but we just need high ambition and collaboration from agencies and the partners that have traditionally not had access to decision-making about these spaces.

Thank you, Ms. Garcia. And I just wanted to reiterate, the question is just, are we on track at this point? And so, Mr. Cordalis.

I think our framework is there. I think a lot could be done--obviously needs to be done to meet that, so I think, at least from the tribal perspective, if we can meet that, and if tribes can have access to a lot more conservation and hopefully land acquisitions, and we can actually meet the acreage goal, to me, that's a huge plus. So I really like the framework. I think it needs just support and a lot of encouragement to get tribes brought along with it.

Thank you. Mr. Hennelly.

Yeah. I would say the big factor is going to be available funding, and if there's robust funding provided over the next ten years, that's definitely doable. You got agencies like Department of Fish and Wildlife that administer a lot of private lands, programs that are in desperate need of funding. Wildlife Conservation Board obviously does a lot of fee title acquisition, but all of that is going to take a whole bunch of funding.

So as long as the funds are there, I know that the programs are already there, willing to move this forward, but the funding will be key, and I expect any kind of robust investment will help to facilitate this going forward. So hopefully that money will be there.

Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. Dr. Bando, does the state, in your opinion, have sufficient information to make informed decisions under 30 by 30, and if not, what's missing? And then if you could also comment or describe in more detail the importance of CDFW's Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping Project, that would be great.

Thank you for the question, Chairman. I would point to a few key data gaps in our current effort. You mentioned fine-scale vegetation mapping. Only 40 percent of the state has been mapped at the fine-scale required to make some of those decisions. I mentioned that earlier in my testimony. I would also point to the need for biodiversity surveys in areas where we currently have gaps, ongoing and refined climate change modeling, as well as community science, more community science to help fill urgent data gaps on accelerated timelines.

I think the second part of your question, Mr. Chairman, was about the importance of that fine-scale vegetation mapping. That is absolutely critical. Understanding where our most important plant areas to protect in California is really essential to protecting the rest of the ecosystems that depend on vegetation really is the foundation of the diversity across our state. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Bando. Mr. Cordalis, what can the state do to address tribal barriers under 30 by 30, and are there particular changes to law or program guidelines that you think would be helpful?

It's a great question. Thank you for asking that. Particular barriers, when we were able to kind of--and I see kind of the work, the achievements we did at the Yurok Tribe kind of being as a model for kind of what I think the ultimate goal of 30 by 30 can do for tribes. And the obstacles were there were really that we needed extra partners, right? It wasn't the tribe and even the state or whoever the other partner or the landowner--we needed a lot of intermediaries, right?

There were times when money had to be available. There were times when we needed potentially to have different people reviewing the land transactions, and you really need experts, right? And tribes don't always have that. I would say as even the Yurok Tribe would be the largest tribe in the state, we didn't have it. We relied on a lot of support, and that's what made it possible, right? And then one other thing I mentioned was this long-term management.

I mean, the beauty of this is you're able to exert more sovereignty and management over lands, but the hard part is you need to exert more sovereignty over waters and lands, and you need more people to do it and people with expertise to do it. And hopefully you have them. A lot of times you might not, and when you do, their time might be fully wrapped up in something else. So there's a lot of kind of internal, kind of capacity things that need to happen there.

Big picture, policy-wise. Tribes, typically a lot, at least the federally-recognized ones, work well and know how to work well with the federal government. And so working within the state is for some tribes, it's not comfortable. There's been kind of stop and start relationships with some specifically kind of waivers of sovereign immunity for certain actions and certain kind of grant agreements can be very tricky to create. I think creating standardized language is really important to that.

I know that tribes are unavailable to access some state programs, and we have some allies working on trying to figure all those out to see if we can maybe correct those. So there's a lot of small things I think need to be done, but the big picture, there's a lot of institutional support. Tribes need to kind of make it happen.

Thank you for that, Mr. Cordalis. Ms. Garcia, could you address, what can the state do to address social barriers to access? And how do we go about making our public spaces more welcoming to historically-marginalized communities?

Thank you for that question. I think that the state can do a lot to address social barriers to access, and a lot of that has to deal with providing the right resources to communities and understanding what the community's needs are from the communities themselves. So that oftentimes, unfortunately, involves a lot of time and resources from the state to devote, which I know is challenging given multiple priorities and staffing limitations.

But we think it's really valuable for the state to have identified staff that can directly engage and build relationships with community members and to expand the communities that they engage and reach through traditional communication methods. And so from speaking with communities themselves, we can understand what is the biggest barrier that they're facing? Is it transportation? Is it when they get to an access or to a natural space they don't feel welcome? Is it various types of things?

Is it a lack of funds to participate in the recreational activities that they can partake in in a special area? OPC, Ocean Protection Council, and I believe the California Diversity Network did look and provide some recommendations for research related to equitable access, both on terrestrial side, including estuaries and some coastal resources, but also on the marine side, and those are included, I believe, in the appendix of the pathways document.

And I do think that they're doing and providing some resources to further that research about how to specifically address these barriers will be super helpful. But there's also a lot of funding that's coming through the federal government that California can access, and a lot of partnership opportunities with the federal government that can also help us meet these goals.

Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Last question for you, Mr. Hennelly. Could you speak to the value of the SHARE program for 30 by 30?

Yes. That's an incredibly important program that facilitates public access to private land. Essentially, the state pays the landowner to bring members of the public out there, and some of the opportunities, the outdoor opportunities, are mentored, too. The landowner actually will go out there and help the new hunter or fisherman to tour around the property and to teach them how to hunt and fish.

It's right now being basically funded through user fees, but could certainly use an increase in funding because the user fees have only allowed it to essentially survive on a pilot basis. It's really only in certain parts of the state is it being implemented. I think it would be great if you could take that program statewide and then also get it much nearer to some of these underrepresented communities, get it down in their areas so that they can take advantage of it.

But it is a wonderful way to increase recreational opportunity in a way that's at low cost to the user but is also done in a way that supports the private landowner. So we would strongly recommend a focus on that program.

Thank you, Mr. Hennelly. Senator Limon has joined the hearing, and she does have one final question. So it's the final, final question.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your participation, and this question is for Ms. Garcia. Following up on what Chair Min kind of asked about in relation to access for our underrepresented communities, I just want to know if there have been explicit conversations that conservation not get defined as limited public access. I know that in a lot of areas throughout California, there are times where we start to talk about conversation and assume that we're all using the same interpretation.

And I just want to make sure that in that interpretation, from the conversations that have been had, we're not excluding general public access in some of these conservation areas specifically.

Thank you, Senator Limon. As far as any discussions or conversations that Azul has been part of, we always strive for mentioning that conservation can be done, and it can be done well in partnership with communities and with disadvantaged communities and all stakeholders. I think California has thankfully had a remarkable record of showing the world how to do well, how to have a really productive economy, and at the same time, we're an indisputable leader in conservation science.

But I think that we do need to just always remember to really specify that in California, when we say conservation, it does not exclude communities. There are, like Secretary Crowfoot mentioned, there are going to be instances where all types of access perhaps are not appropriate, but there are many ways where we can meet both the access, biodiversity, and climate resilience needs.

And I think that we need to get there through leveraging the expertise and engaging in these types of conversations about conservation, not just on the coast or in really remote areas, but throughout California and all its districts.

Thank you so much. Do you have any other questions, Senator? Thank you, presenters. Thank you, Senator Limon. We appreciate your time today. Now, I would like to invite public comment. Let's begin with any witnesses here in the room, please line up at the front.

And just given time, if you could limit your comments to two minutes each, that would be great. Go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Rico Mastrodonato with the Trust for Public Land. Our major concern about the implementation of 30 x 30 is the January budget. I mean, these pots of money, the state's primary mitigating adaptation and access program, and this is mitigating adaptation, or, pardon me, damage to the environment, to biodiversity, to our water supply. That's happening now, not 35, 20, 25 years from now.

And for the past 10 years, the state has focused largely on mitigating when it comes to investments and attention to address climate change. And meanwhile, we have extreme heat in our cities, where people are literally falling dead and have health issues. Our primary local access program in the state is the statewide local park program that removes barriers because they're walkable. Local parks are walkable. It's invested over $1.0 billion. It's been oversubscribed by $6 billion, and it was zeroed out.

The urban greening program, zeroed out urban forestry, zeroed out coastal conservancy, $475,000,000 or something, swept away. I mean, damage to people, communities, species, landscapes are happening now. And I think we have to start thinking about are we addressing our adaptation needs as quickly as we need to because we're not prepared, as far as I can see in the real world. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. I'm Dennis O'Connor. I'm a volunteer with the Mono Lake Committee. Although I'm speaking for myself today because this recent sequence of storms has pretty much buried the poor town of Lee Vining. Highway 395 through town has been closed because of blizzard conditions numerous times. And so needless to say, I haven't had a chance to vet these thoughts with the powers that be.

Also, I got to say, this is the first time in quite a while that I've been on this side of the rail, and it's different. So I want to build on a comment or a question that Senator Padilla had a little bit earlier. According to the pathways 30 x 30 report, quote gap codes 1 and 2 are generally consistent with our definition of 30 x 30 conservation areas, as they include areas with a high degree of durable protection and management for biodiversity or ecosystem values.

End quote. I think the key word in that sentence is generally also, according to the report, and as noted by Jennifer Norris, an area is considered as a 30 x 30 conservation area if it meets the following definition. Quote, land and coastal water areas that are durably protected and managed to sustain functional ecosystems both intact and stored, and the diversity of life they support, end quote.

The Mono Lake Tufa State Natural Reserve, boy, that rolls right off the tongue, which includes the lake itself, is shown on the gap map as category two, meaning that it's part of the conservation areas. Well, 28 years after the State Water Resources Control Board established a lake level of 6392ft as being the level that protects the public trust resources, per the state Supreme Court seminal Audubon decision, the lake is still, as of this morning, 14ft short of that goal.

Seems to me one could reasonably argue that Mono Lake is not being durably managed to sustain ecosystem functions. The point being is that just because the map shows that a specific location is being conserved, to quote from a song from Porgy and Bess, it ain't necessarily so. And as policymakers, those implementing the 30 x 30 program need to take that into consideration as we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. O'Connor.

Hello Chair and Members, Abigail Mile on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation and I'd like today to talk a little bit about 30 x 30 funding. Although I realize this is not a budget hearing, mostly talking about how disheartening it's been to see natural resources issues be chronically underfunded and then in a down budget year, to see the largest investment in years be the most heavily hit. But I especially want to address the different areas of funding that we're seeing, trying to be clawed back and how we can mediate that.

I know there's been a lot of discussion around a potential bond to Fund some of these clawbacks, which on behalf of the state Parks Foundation, I just want to discuss and express some concern as was outlined in the background or for this hearing around solely relying on a bond to make up for this funding, especially just emphasizing the need for outdoor access programs and the programming part of the 30 x 30 overall goal to make sure there is equitable outdoor access and that underserved communities can reach the spaces that we're working to conserve.

So with all of this, while excited to see discussions around backfilling some of this funding for capital outlay and acquisition and parks maintenance and all of these important investments, also just wanted to raise the issue of making sure we're funding access through the budget as well.

Thank you, Ms. Mile.

Good morning Mr. Chair. I thought it was afternoon, but it's still morning. Darryl Lucian here on behalf of a 40-acre conservation league, a Black-led land conservancy that is prioritizing conservation but also access as co-equal goals, we want to thank the Senator from Santa Barbara for her work establishing the community access program that we're certainly big fans of. We want to thank the Newsom Administration for his commitment to 30 x 30.

We want to thank the Legislature for providing us an allocation in last year's budget funding 30 x 30. Implementing 30 x 30 in statute is something that we believe is really important because as we look forward and we look to the future of 30 x 30, all of the funding that's needed, all of the barriers that still need to be overcome, we recognize that this is something that's broader and sort of larger and more elongated than the current Governor has an opportunity to serve in office. And so placing this in statute, we think, would be a tremendous step toward really formally establishing it as a state policy goal.

As the only Black-led land conservancy in California and maybe one of only two or three in the country, we want to say that it's important to the extent that we're talking about something like this or we're talking about a number of the bonds that are going to pass through this Committee, that there is a recognition that diversifying the space really requires not only organizations that are sort of committed to outreach and education, but it also requires organizations that are committed to actually acquiring land, going through the process, socializing and talking about these things.

Some of the barriers that we see to this, very briefly that could be the subject of legislation matching Fund requirements, particularly on young or diverse organizations as they're getting up and going and moving through the process, is certainly one that can be complicating, to say the least, the food and agricultural code. I want to say it's subdivision c of Section 512, defines socially disadvantaged groups.

And to the extent that this Committee, as you all are looking at any number of these measures, can ensure that there are opportunities to overcome some of these challenges early on.

Thank you. Mr. Lucien, would you mind wrapping it up? Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Lucien.

Good morning. My name is Stacy Corless with Sierra Business Council, and I'm speaking today on behalf of the Sierra Consortium, which is a coalition of conservation and community sustainability organizations in the very, very snowy Sierra. As you've heard from Dennis, our Members are deeply committed to the 30 x 30 initiative and as grantees, many of the departments you heard from already this morning, we serve as partners implementing these on the ground projects that will get the state to this goal.

But as you've heard from others, we're very concerned about the proposed budget cuts and the impact that will have on the state's ability and our ability as partners to meet these goals. And we're very supportive of the Legislature's engagement in setting interim goals for 30 x 30 and placing this initiative in statute. Sustained funding for implementation programs for agencies, people you heard from, but also the Wildlife Conservation Board is particularly important to us and as you know, incredible about getting money out on the ground.

Also the conservancies, such as Sierra Nevada Conservancy, we need funding for capacity building. And as you heard from the native Plant Society, the data gaps with the current mapping and confusion really about what counts as conserved and what's included in gap, one or two is a big problem for our members, and we need that investment in order to make informed decisions and for the state to set informed priorities.

So we support leveraging federal funds, but keeping in mind that complexity of grant making makes it so much more difficult for our Members to actually get the work done on the ground that needs to get done. So thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you, Ms. Corless. Seeing no one else in the room, we will now move to the individuals waiting to provide public comment via the teleconference service. For those who are just joining or who have not yet called in to participate, please dial this toll-free number, 877-226-8216 and when prompted, please use the access code 621-7161 moderator if you could please prompt the individuals waiting to provide public comment and then provide me with the total number of people on the line. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you have not already pressed one, then zero on your telephone keypad and wish to make a comment, please do so at this time. An operator will provide you your line number and you will be called on by that line number. When called upon, please identify yourself and if using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. So once again, if not already done so, please press one, then zero to get into the public comment queue.

And currently there are 15 lines in the comment, 17 lines in the comments queue. 30 seconds. Thank you. Moderator as a reminder to those on the phone, we have limited time today, so I'm going to ask that anyone willing to wishing to testify limit their comments to 30 seconds each. Moderator if you could please open the lines and call on the Members of the public individually, we will continue. Thank you. Line 23, your line is open. Please go ahead. Hello.

My name is Johnny Carlson with the Planning and Conservation League and the Power Nature Coalition, and we're here to support fulfilling the Legislature, fulfilling its commitment to conservation, and tackling the climate crisis by fully funding the 3030 initiative. The 3030 effort provides an important opportunity to focus and accelerate restoration on degraded lands and waters, such as urban creeks. With climate change shifting habitats, previously fragmented areas, including urban areas, may become even more important for restoration.

These and other efforts will help species adapt to climate change by creating greater connectivity for wildlife and the ability to move between habitats. And just an observation on the maps provided on the gap one and gap two areas, it seems to me that riparian setbacks would be an important way to connect these habitat areas. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next then next is line 38. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chairman and Members. This is Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy. Thank you for holding this hearing. First of all, we'd like to highlight that it is critical that the protected land in California captures a full diversity of species and habitat types. And so out of the eight major habitat types, there are currently five that do not yet meet the 30% protection milestones.

So if protected lands fail to represent the full diversity of California's ecosystems, we're in danger of losing these species that rely on the habitats that are left out. So we strongly urge the state to ensure that protection goals are applied across habitat types. Secondly, we would like to highlight that 30 x 30 goals. Meeting them will require substantial public resources.

And so, as the chair mentioned, our analysis found that $1 billion is needed annually to achieve the protection levels needed to achieve a 30 x 30 with their representative network. So the Governor's Budget proposes significant cuts to programs that support 30 x 30. So we urge the Legislature to protect remaining funding to key 30 x 30 programs.

And then lastly, we urge the state to think of the 30 x 30 goal not as an endpoint, but rather a milestone to securing a resilient biodiverse future for California. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Then next we go to line 11. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Melanie Schlotterbeck calling on behalf of Hills for Everyone, and I'm the Southland regional lead for power and nature. We support the state Legislature fulfilling its commitment to the 30 x 30 initiative. Where we invest our state budget dollars indicates where our values as a state are prioritized. We continue to see the California Department of Parks and Recreation as a key partner in the 30 x 30 effort. Nonprofits and land trusts are willing partners, but they cannot carry the burden.

They can only fill in gaps. We generally only have one chance to buy land before it is converted to other uses. So we urge the state to reinvest in 30 x 30 and prioritize funding for the Department of Parks and Recreation as the climate change clock is ticking. Thank you.

Thank you. The next line 14, please go ahead. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Ben Grundy, the Conservation Associate with Environment California and member of the Power and Nature Coalition. Environment California is in strong support of the Legislature fulfilling its commitment to conservation and tackling the climate crisis by funding the 30 by 30 initiative. Establishing and funding clear pathways to protect 30% of our land and coastal waters by 2030 is critical to mitigating and building resilience to climate change and protecting biodiversity.

These key objectives of protecting biodiversity, increasing access to nature, and mitigating and building resilience to climate change are not being met consistently. While approximately 16% of coastal waters meet the state's definition of conserved, only 9% have the level of protection scientists say is needed to defend against biodiversity loss and climate impacts. High levels of protection and new, expanded or strengthened MPAs would benefit millions of Californians that access the coast without the need to take anything from it.

The pathway strategy sets forth a goal of conserving an additional 6 million acres of land and half a million acres of coastal waters by 2030 to meet the goal. We support this goal and work to involve stakeholders in planning efforts. However, a goal and strategy without a clear implementation plan will not result in 6 million acres of conservation in less than seven years.

The successful implementation of California's 30 x 30 goals requires clear, science based criteria, funding and equitable access, and to protect 30% of California's ocean by 2030. We need to protect nature with people, not keep communities from it. Thank you. Next we go to line 40. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delphino. I work very closely with the Power and Nature Coalition as well as Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, California Wilderness Coalition, Sonoma Land Trust and Mojave Desert Land Trust. These organizations strongly support the 30 x 30 goal in the pathway strategy document. We appreciate all of the hard work and effort by the Administration and the support by the Legislature. We were heartened to see the investments promised in last year's budget.

However, as many commenters have already made the point, we need significant investments to empower and equip all the partners who are prepared and ready to go to protect 6 million acres of lands in the next now seven years. But we were disappointed to see that these investments, particularly for 30 x 30, were hit the hardest and cut the most in the proposed budget issued by the Governor in January.

And we strongly urge the Legislature to work with the 65 organizations that submitted a power in nature budget letter asking for restoration of these funds and certainly no further cuts in order to give us the tools that we need to acquire land, manage land, do the outdoor access, build trails.

Thank you very much. Moderator how many callers are left on the queue? We currently have 14 in the queue. Okay, I'm going to have to ask. We'll have to do a 32nd hard stop at this point. Sorry about that. Line 36, please go ahead.

Good morning, Members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. My name is Arian Dehnow and I'm a Policy Associate at the Pacific Forest Trust. I'm going to be echoing a lot of what my fellow commenters have already been saying and their concerns about the budget. We applaud the work that has already been done to meet the 30 x 30 goal, but far more must be done to conserve 6 million acres in less than seven years.

We need to invest significantly more money now in acquisition of both conservation easements and fee title properties, as well as restoration and management if we want the 30 thank you goal to be more than enough. Appreciate your comment. Thank you. Line 49, please go ahead.

Thank you. Chairman and Senators, Gianna Setoudeh, Policy Director with the South Yuba River Citizens League, and we're part of the power in Nature Coalition here today speaking in strong support of the state's continued commitment to funding the 30 x 30 initiative. Circle works throughout the Yuba river watershed to implement on the ground projects, including river restoration, meta restoration, and forest health projects that enhance our state's water security. Our region's fire resilience. It protects our often underserved rural communities in the face of a changing climate.

Thank you for your comment and next week is line 50, please go ahead. Good morning. My name is Charlie Schneider and I'm with California Trout. I'd like to express our strong support for California's 30 x 30 goal, but we remain concerned that the state's current 30 x 30 strategy does not adequately consider freshwater ecosystems. Aquatic ecosystems play a unique and critical role in supporting the health and vitality of California's natural and human communities.

We strongly encourage the state to develop specific strategies to protect and restore freshwater ecosystems, including establishing freshwater protected areas, protecting water quality, and protecting, restoring and managing for environmental flows. Thank you for your comment. And next. Line 31, please go ahead.

Good morning Members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. I'm Mary Buxton. Since 2020, I've been a 30 by 30 citizen volunteer with Sierra Club Climate Action California and the Power and Nature Coalition. I'm here to speak in support of the Legislature fulfilling its budget commitment to conservation and tackling the climate crisis by protecting the existing funding for 30 by 30 and continuing to Fund the 30 x 30 initiative in the 2023 budget that will help.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you. Then line 34, please go ahead. Line 34 moving on to line 35. Please go ahead. Hi, my name is Andrew Scamia with California Environmental Voters and with the Power and Nature Coalition. I would like to echo what many of my colleagues shared today, including equity.

And so we're hoping that equity must be woven into all aspects of this 30 x 30 initiative, which also includes access to outdoors and nature's benefits, representation that is meaningful and that leads to quality experiences and outcomes. And we're hoping that the state will partner to ensure that any 30 x 30 initiative has a goal of 40% of the 30 x 30 funding. Thank you for your comment. Conservation Board must be line 46, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Angela Kemsley, the Conservation Director at Wild Coast and a member of the Power and Nature Coalition. I'm here to speak in strong support of the Legislature fulfilling its commitment to conservation and tackling the climate crisis. By funding the 30 x 30 initiative, California is facing one of our biggest challenges yet, climate change. Luckily, we're a biodiversity hotspot with many ecosystems that can serve as natural solutions to climate change.

We urge a Legislature to Fund the programs essential to achieving 30 by 30 and help strengthen conservation strategy specifically for our coast and ocean. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Line 37, please go ahead.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Matissa Jahangiri and I'm speaking on behalf of Sierra Club California and are more than half a million Members and supporters statewide. We're very invested in 30 by 30 and committed to working with the state on these efforts throughout this process to reach these shared targets.

We want to ensure that any contradictory practices to these efforts are addressed and discontinued, including oil and gas extraction, water management, conservation issues, and threats to the vitality of the western Joshua Tree and surrounding desert habitat. Stopping these harms needs to be prioritized in tandem with our existing goals.

Thank you for your comment. Line 28. Your line is open.

This is Jamie Diamond with the Sport Fishing Association of California. I'd like to encourage you to put pressure on the 30 x 30 advisory board to really invite the sport fishing and marine region stakeholders to the table. We have not had a seat or a voice as it is with national marine sanctuaries. California is already almost at their 30% goal. And we do need to protect access to consumptive use, especially for disadvantaged communities who rely on subsistence fishing.

Thank you for your comment. Line 53, please go ahead. Hello? Yes, you're on. Okay.

Thank you. Hey, Tanani Centralana hey. Oh, good morning. My name is Nicole Whipple and I'm a member of the Round Valley Indian Tribes. Today I am with Save California Salmon and the Power and Nature Coalition. I would like to ask that and echo the efforts of Ms. Bondo that our water is not a luxury and ask that the state look to preserving our waters on the Ill River as they supply much of the water that is diverted to Sonoma and the Bay Area.

Thank you for your comment. And just as a reminder to all the folks that are left, we are limiting comments to 30 seconds for purposes of time. Thank you. Thank you. Line 51, please go ahead.

Aaron Gilbert, on behalf of the Pacific Crest Trail Association that manages the 2650 miles Pacific Crest Trail from Mexico to Canada, of which 1700 miles are in California, and I would simply echo the comments before me in support of 30 x 30. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 57, please go ahead. Good morning.

My name is Jaden Wynn with the Natural Resources Defense Council. We strongly support the Legislature fulfilling its commitments to fight the climate and biodiversity crises through full funding of the 30 x 30 initiative. We applaud the state's efforts to address equity as integral to 30 x 30 implementation. A truly equitable 30 x 30 plan for California needs to include an expansion and reimagination of how our lands and waters are conserved and restored.

We would also like to underscore the importance of expanding federally led conservation efforts, including land return and the restoration of culturally significant watersheds regarding marine protection.

Thank you for your comment. Line 56, please go ahead. Good morning, Senators. Wayne Coda with Coastal Conservation Association of California anglers believe in responsible and sustainable outdoor recreation. California waters are the most regulated in the world. There's nothing off our coastline that isn't protected by federal and state agencies, commissions or councils. We want to fix real problems that plague our environment, sewer runoff, pollution, plastics, raw sewage releases. They're bigger problems that can fix the whole coastline. Responsible fishing isn't the enemy and needs to be protected. Please help us to fix the real problems that will really help the environment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Line 59, please go ahead. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, Dan Silver from Endangered Habitats League from Los Angeles. As others, I urge you to restore the budget cuts to 30 x 30 so that we can carry out our duty to be stewards of the environment. Thank you. Line 61, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Samantha Samuelson with Audubon California. In addition to providing funding for 30 x 30, the state should also be looking at opportunities to increase conservation designations and management on public lands. The state should be supporting the many efforts to create new national monuments, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. And lastly, California should also be looking at new state parks, ecological areas, wildlife areas, and improved conservation management on state demonstration forests. Thank you.

And the last public comment will come from line 62. Please go ahead. I'm sorry, 62, please go. Line 62, if you can press one, then zero again. Line 62, you're open.

Thank you. My name is Allison Weber and I am with Friends of the Inyo, which is a member of the Power and Nature Coalition. I stand alongside our coalition Members asking to restore the budgets allowed towards 30 x 30, which are extremely exciting both towards the state's climate goals as well as the nations and the whole world. Really. California is a biodiversity hotspot and we have many opportunities for new national monuments, wilderness areas and more. Please make this a priority and help us get these great programs.

Thank you for your comment. We do have one more. We'll go to line 34.

Hi, this is Pam Hetherington, Environmental Center of San Diego and a member of the Power and Nature Coalition, showing strong support for 30 x 30. But please make sure in your 30 x 30 pursuits that management, monitoring and enforcement funding is in sync with any land purchases, set asides or easements, and please restore the budget. Thank you kindly.

Thank you. Then back to the chair. Thank you, moderator and thank you to all the panelists who presented today and to the individuals who called in to participate via public testimony. If you were not able to testify via the teleconference service or you wanted to expand upon your testimony, please feel free to submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Natural Resources and water Committee or visit our website.

Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. With that, I want to thank everybody and thank you, and we appreciate your participation, patience, and cooperation. We have concluded the agenda. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is now adjourned.